REGIONAL COMMISSION FOR FISHERIES

RECOFI

TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW

ii

Bibliographic reference

RECOFI. Technical Performance Review. FAO Regional Office for the Near East and North Africa.

Cairo. 2011. 83p.

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do

not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and of the Regional Commission for

Fisheries concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area

or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The views

expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the

views of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and of the Regional

Commission for Fisheries. The conclusions given in this report are considered appropriate

at the time of its preparation. They may be modified in the light of further knowledge

gained at subsequent stages of the project.

iii

Executive Summary

At the fifth session of the Regional Commission for Fisheries (RECOFI) held in Dubai, United Arab

Emirates, from May 12 to 14 2009, the Commission agreed to hold an ad hoc intercessional meeting to

consider ways and means to enhance RECOFI‟s role, including the Commission‟s consolidation and

development. Members recognised the need to make the Commission more efficient and to accelerate

its growth.

The purpose of the technical performance review is first, to provide an overview of the organisations,

structures, and objectives of RECOFI and second, to consider the technical performance with regard to the

organisations‟ objectives. Mr Joseph Catanzano, International Consultant, was recruited by the

FAO/RECOFI Secretariat to carry out the review.

As the core objective is increasing efficiency of the Commission, this evaluation will focus on the

relevance of the strategy and pursuant activities and will also address how well RECOFI develops,

pursues and implements the strategy.

Competence of the Commission

The Commission, within its area of competence, is empowered to formulate and recommend

appropriate measures for the conservation and management of living marine resources. Additionally, it

is mandated to: review the economic and social aspects of the fishing industry and recommend

measures for its development; encourage, recommend and coordinate training and extension activities;

encourage, recommend, coordinate and undertake research and development activities; assemble,

publish and disseminate information regarding living marine resources and fisheries based on these

resources; and carry out any other activities as may be necessary for RECOFI to achieve its purpose as

defined in the Commission‟s Agreement.

RECOFI’s core budget

RECOFI’s core budget is funded by the contributions of the Member countries of the Commission, the

shares of which are paid annually. The practice has been for Member countries to pay their share of

the budget equally, i.e. USD 5 000 per country per year. The annual core budget of the Commission is

currently of USD 40 000. The core budget of RECOFI takes the form of a multi-lateral trust-fund

project with the FAO symbol MTF/REM/001/MUL and title “Support to the Secretariat of RECOFI”.

The project began in April 2003 and has been renewed on a yearly basis. Its budget is revised

regularly in order to monitor annual contributions by Member countries and the cash flow of

expenditures.

The technical performance review

The Technical review of the Commission‟s activities has been developed throughout four last RECOFI

Sessions (Session II Muscat, 2003, Session III Doha 2005, Session IV Jeddah, 2007 and Session V Dubaï

2009). The methodology used is based on document analysis, questionnaires (Members State) and

interviews conducted by FAO staff involved in RECOFI activities and completed by a visit to the

Secretariat of RECOFI. Interviews with national delegations during the meeting in Rome (May 11-12,

2010) complete the materials used in the review.

The technical review of debates and activities is presented according to the following main themes:

statistics and resources survey for the RECOFI area;

aquaculture;

general fisheries management issues;

relationships with other international organizations and non-RECOFI member states.

iv

The following issues are addressed by the technical performance review:

- Knowledge on the status of resources and fisheries, data collection and sharing;

- Knowledge on the status of aquaculture;

- Regional dimensions of the fishing and aquaculture sectors;

- Decision making, transparency, participation and methods for: defining and implementing the

Commission Strategy, and assessing the results

- Quality and provision of scientific advice and economic and social analysis

- The Decision making process for adopting Commission recommendations and measures

- Capacity-Building, Training and Technical Assistance

- Communication and information dissemination

- Organization and financing: scenarios for the future.

Each of the issues is elaborated in detail (i.e. activities and experiences, assessment and

recommendations) in the main Technical Performance Report.

Main Strengths and weaknesses identified by Member countries (Source: questionnaire

RECOFI completed by Member countries, March 2010)

Strengths

Framework of the United Nations;

Good platform to discuss and resolve issues;

RAIS website;

Increasing technical backstop by FAO;

Well qualified and knowledgeable personnel managing RECOFI activities;

Efficient and fast preparation of meetings and facilitation of missions;

Appropriate forum to address all fisheries issues in Persian Gulf & Oman sea Region;

Availability of experts and capabilities;

Good internal and external communication;

Firm commitment to membership and committees by regional experts;

Presence of high level technical expertise;

Awareness of member countries‟ lack of capabilities in scientific research;

Consulting member countries‟ experts in the analysis of collected data;

The organizational role it plays and the development of generally sound scientific

recommendations.

Weaknesses

Low budget and financial input;

Interactions between Focal Points in the groups and between Secretariat and NFPs;

Level of importance given by some members to the meetings and workshops;

Level of awareness of RECOFI and its role within the region ;

Relations with other RFMOs and International Agencies;

Limited capability for effective execution for the conservation and management of fisheries

resources under Article 14 of the FAO Constitution;

Conflict of interest between the policies of member countries and the primary objectives of the

Commission;

Lack of scientific and practical instruments to implement the Commission‟s decisions;

Lack of training workshops;

Insufficient support from FAO at a higher level;

Low representation by some member countries (meetings);

Incomplete implementation of agreed upon projects;

v

Unorganized work program;

Unpaid contributions by some member countries;

Lack of agreement by member countries on unified measures to study fish stocks and the

collection of data.

Compendium of the recommendations developed by the independent technical performance

review by issues addressed:

The Commission mandate should evolve towards a more ambitious knowledge production

programme. The current process should therefore be pursued with a greater contribution from

Member countries and/or the external support of a partner. Greater understanding of national

contexts and greater involvement of fisheries sector professionals and the national bodies with

stock assessment skills should be promoted within the RECOFI framework, perhaps through an

initiative aiming to develop a work plan on this issue. This work should constitute the framework

to organize RECOFI‟s work and future efforts aiming to consolidate national systems

(institutional capacity building for fisheries policy definition and contribution to fisheries

governance in particular as regards its regional dimension).

Pursue and consolidate the Regional Agricultural Information System (RAIS) through the

facilitation, within RECOFI, of a network of experts and potential decision-makers in order to

contribute to the sustainable development of aquaculture in the region. Pursue, through RECOFI,

the dialogue between Member countries towards a strategy for the development of aquaculture

programmes according to environmental standards, risk prevention and the strengthening of

economic, commercial and food interests in the area. A network of experts should be set up

which would contribute to RAIS and lead to exchanges with the sector‟s operators within a policy

framework for the controlled and sustainable development of aquaculture activities. RAIS and the

Working Group on Aquaculture (WGA) should pool their knowledge within a Committee open to

actors and decision-makers. The WGA should seek increased commitment from RECOFI

Member countries through appropriate programmes.

RECOFI should endeavour to integrate measures to control Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated

(IUU) fishing with its other basic missions such as successful resource conservation, efficient

catches and effort monitoring, effective fishing capacity management, sound scientific research,

reliable fisheries data collection, compilation and dissemination. The achievement of these

objectives necessarily requires the availability of adequate financial and human resources.

The shared nature of many of the stocks could make national fishery resources assessments and

management initiatives of limited use in developing effective management plans.

Given the legitimacy of the regional fisheries dimension in the RECOFI zone, work is needed to

define criteria and set protocols to identify common issues and prioritize actions. This work

should be followed by the preparation of RECOFI programmes and projects (validated by the

Commission during the sessions) and presented to partners (donor Member countries or external

donor agencies).

Member countries, under the aegis of countries with a major interest in aquaculture development,

should use RECOFI as a platform to exchange lessons learnt, knowledge and operational capacity

in order to plan and drive the development of investments in the aquaculture sector. Aquaculture

should be considered as a sector with a common strategic interest (markets, food requirements,

growth contribution) despite the fact that the regional dimension of projects does not necessarily

imply a common territorial dimension. The interest of cooperation in this sector should be

promoted through projects and a strategy minimising ecological, financial and commercial risks. It

is also by rapidly opening a dialogue with commissions that have investment resources and with

private economic operators (national and international) that RECOFI actions can be pursued and

strengthened in the sustainably-established aquaculture sector and that RAIS can be developed as

a network, information system and a platform for dissemination and exchange of knowledge. The

vi

regional dimension should also involve economic, commercial and development aspects. For

aquaculture, a regional approach is opportune since it will lead to harmonization of laws and

regulations and thus facilitate regional trade of aquatic animals and aquaculture products. In

addition, not all countries have similar access to the specialised advice that is required to update

national legal frameworks.

From a legal point of view the RECOFI agreement is in compliance with the RECOFI missions,

objectives and stakes. Nevertheless it would be advisable to facilitate by means of operational

measures and structural evolution, a stronger implication of member countries seen by the

empowerment of RECOFI; national contributions increased and the commitment diversified by

member countries according to operating modes as those experimented by RAIS project. There is

a need to rethink the location and the funding of the Commission headquarters in one of the

Member countries for reasons of proximity and physical appropriation by the Member countries.

There is a need to rebalance the implication of FAO and the Member countries through the

nomination and the financial support of staff from Member countries. Regional staff could have

ongoing functions or rotate within the head of the Secretariat and at the head of the WGs. The

RECOFI Agreement needs to be amended in order to incorporate modern fisheries management

principles and new international conventions (Flag State duties, Port State measures, the

precautionary principle, the ecosystem approach to fisheries and aquaucutlure).

There is a need to strengthen the Commission through the creation of a Scientific, Technical and

Economic Committee (STEC) that would have a consultative role and would participate in

strategy development. In order to progress in the process of exchanging scientific capacity, a

regional initiative coordinated by RECOFI could be organized, such as a scientific, technical and

economic conference which would clarify national capacity, create synergy between researchers,

economists and technicians and launch actions towards co-programming within RECOFI. Such

an initiative could also contribute to the visibility of RECOFI, both for its achievements and its

mandate, and be used as a platform for potential donors wishing to submit common projects or

actions.

RECOFI should consider developing criteria and technical protocols to improve cooperation

between national institutions with a view to their participation in the RECOFI activity plan

(research, monitoring, control and surveillance).

RECOFI should develop capacity to assess the state of governance in each national sector and

capacity for managing fisheries and developing aquaculture sector.

Given the fact that RECOFI does not yet produce recommendations based on recognised scientific

work as regards to fisheries management issues at a regional scale, efforts should target the

dissemination of exchanges and of reports produced on issues addressed and work projects. There

is no need to modify the process apart from developing more communication activities or papers

and through a dissemination plan for the results and recommendations.

Seek extra-budgetary funds to increase the output from, and impact of, capacity building

initiatives. On the basis of these extra resources, widen the panel of stakeholders who could

benefit from sessions, workshops and training sessions on the central themes of fisheries

management and aquaculture development. Strengthen the human and financial capacity of the

Secretariat to support the focal points in the dissemination and the facilitation of national actor

networks concerned with fisheries and aquaculture problems. These actors could then contribute to

work undertaken by RECOFI and promote RECOFI capacity building resources. Give focal points

the resources and an action plan to disseminate RECOFI achievements as well as to mobilise the

technical human capacity required to execute the Terms of Reference (ToR). Prioritize the needs

of the Member countries in a more operational way in order to prepare a plan to build national

capacity that could, through dealing with some of the issues, provide support to the projects run by

RECOFI; for example as regards the issue of ecosystem indicators and stock assessment, the

vii

creation of a fisheries observatory, the development of an artisanal and industrial fishery registry,

the fight against IUU fishing, the monitoring of markets in the area, the development of a

management plan for a shared fishery (e.g. pelagic stocks) or one of common economic interest

(shrimp fishery)

RECOFI should prepare a communication and information plan to deal with relational aspects

with Member countries and with non-member countries in the same area and with all partners

likely to bring financial, technical and operational support to RECOFI workshops. This plan

should clearly define the mandates and the role of each of the Commission‟s bodies including the

focal points (specialised or national) and define their means of action. This plan could contain a

training section in order to consider all the resources, products and strategic elements that could

strengthen the Commission visibility and hence its capacity to promote initiatives in the area.

This Information Communication Training (ICT) plan could lead to a more autonomous

Commission and to the dissemination of achievements, which is more direct and in a more

appropriate format for public and private operators involved in the fisheries and aquaculture

sectors.

Scenarios for the future: seek ways and means to improve the Commission’s financial

capacity.

Maintain an equal contribution (excluding any other criterion than the fact of being a RECOFI

Member country) with an upward readjustment of annual national contributions;

Maintain the principle of equal and compulsory minimum contribution supplemented by extra-

budgetary contributions decided by Member countries according to their involvement in work

programmes where they take on the leadership; this was successfully the case on the RAIS

supported by Kuwait. On the other hand, the equal and imposed extra-budgetary co-funding of

Member countries proved to be inappropriate and did not lead to the work that was planned for

aquaculture. This process should therefore be abandoned;

The ending of an equal payment for all via indexed contributions based on an indicator calculation

taking into account the level of wealth of the country, the shares of fisheries and aquaculture in the

economic growth or the contribution indices of the sector to food requirements, to the trade

balance, to employment or other physical parameters related to marine or inland activities (coastal

length, EEZ size, surface available for aquaculture, etc). This solution should then be studied with

a view to achieving a target total budget which would not lead to more resources but would

introduce a differential which would only work on the basis of a strong and secure agreement

written into the RECOFI Agreement. More than the process, it is this commitment which would

illustrate a political change in the RECOFI working context.

Depending on the budgetary forecast and expectations from other recommendations, a budget of

around USD 450 000 to 500 000 per biennium (i.e. USD 30 000 to 35 000 / year / Member country)

would be a significant step towards the Commission‟s autonomy and would signal its long-term

commitment to regional work programmes which support good fisheries governance and aquaculture

development. This budget could constitute a working capital and would hence be a guarantee for

national or international donors (stakeholders in the area's marine and inland interests) given that

partners pay increasing attention to the self-financing capacity of Member countries, regional

organizations and to their own capacity regardless of their access to extra-budgetary funds.

The Commission, whilst maintaining the current modus operandi concerning the recovery of FAO and

Member country staff expenses could progressively prepare projects covering some thematic work

programmes that could be submitted to external donors or partners (Gulf Cooperation Council –GCC-

funding, Member country or donor unilateral funding to support development, environmental

protection, public investment concerning research, monitoring, control, surveillance etc) .

viii

As it currently stands, a wider panel of national actors could be involved with national financial

support, but in practice this makes the choice of resource persons somewhat haphazard and affects

their medium and long-term thematic commitment. The best option is always for the Commission to

meet the cost of inviting the resource persons required to develop activities and build its human

capacity.

A more operational and narrower cooperation with the GCC should be considered on the basis of an

agreement between the RECOFI Member countries of this organization and in parallel with other

possibilities.

Conclusion

1. In order to build on the current dynamics, it is advisable to revise the priorities for the

upcoming actions as following:

2. The updated review of the needs and capacities of Member countries (governance);

3. The definition and the implementation of criteria and working methodology to define and

select the regional issues to address;

4. The participative definition of a “vision” for the future of the role and the place of RECOFI in

the region;

5. A reform of the functioning of the Commission (rebalancing the involvements between

stakeholders and partners, criteria of programming, creation of a SETC, and a better use of the

regional human capacities to propose projects to donors);

6. The adaptation of the RECOFI agreement on the financial aspects (increasing the level of the

national contributions);

7. The updating of the RECOFI agreement to include the new international instruments and

conventions;

8. The opening of the Commission to the new stakeholders (private, NGOs, other publics

administration (i.e. finance, environment, foreign office, trade, etc).

CONTENTS

1. Purpose of the technical performance review 10

2. Overview of the organisation, structure and objectives 10

3. Review of the recent activities 16

4. Technical performance review by issues 21

5. RECOFI weaknesses and solutions proposed 36

6. Challenges and strategy, scenario for the future 38

1

1. PURPOSE OF THE TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW

At the fifth session of the Regional Commission for Fisheries (RECOFI), Dubai, United Arab

Emirates, 12 to 14 May 2009, the Commission agreed to hold an ad hoc intersessional meeting to

consider ways and means to enhance RECOFI‟s role, including the Commission‟s consolidation and

development. Members recognised the need to make the Commission more efficient and to accelerate

its growth.

The purpose of the technical performance review is first, to provide an overview of the organisations,

structures, and objectives of RECOFI and second, to consider their technical performance with regard to

their objectives. Mr Joseph Catanzano, International Consultant, was recruited by the FAO/RECOFI

Secretariat to carry out the review.

As the core objective is to increase the Commission‟s efficiency, this evaluation will focus on the

relevance of the strategy and pursuant activities and will also address how well RECOFI develops,

pursues and implements the strategy.

2. OVERVIEW OF THE ORGANISATION, STRUCTURE, FUNCTIONS,

2.1 The organisation

The Agreement for the Establishment of the Regional Commission for Fisheries was drafted to replace

the Committee for the Development and Management of the Fisheries Resources of the Gulfs (the so-

called „Gulfs Committee‟)1, which was a subsidiary of the now-abolished Indian Ocean Fisheries

Commission (IOFC). The Agreement entered into force on 26 February 20012.

The mandate area of the Commission is delineated as follows: from Ras Dhabat Ali in (16° 39‟N, 53°

3‟30"E) then to a position in (16° 00‟N, 53° 25‟E) then to a position in (17° 00‟N, 56° 30‟E) then to a

position in (20° 30‟N, 60° 00‟E) then to Ras Al-Fasteh in (25° 04‟N, 61° 25‟E) (Article IV). The

1 The Regional Commission for Fisheries (hereinafter referred to as “RECOFI” or “the Commission”) has

expanded its functions and powers from those of the Gulfs Committee. RECOFI is a Regional Fisheries

Management Organization established by international agreement under Article XIV of the FAO Constitution. 2 The Commission may amend its founding Agreement by a two-thirds majority of its Members. Amendments to

the Agreement are reported to the Council of the FAO, which has the power to disallow them if it finds that such

amendments are inconsistent with the objectives and purposes of the Organization or the provisions of the

Constitution of the Organization (Article XII). Proposals for the amendment of the Agreement may be made by

any Member in a communication addressed to the Secretary. The Secretary transmits to all Members and to the

Director-General of the FAO a copy of such proposals for amendment immediately upon their receipt. No action

on a proposal for the amendment of the Agreement is taken by the Commission at any session, unless it has been

included in the provisional agenda of the session (Rule XVI.1 and 2). At its first Session, in the Sultanate of

Oman in October 2001, the Commission approved its Rules of Procedures. The Commission may, by a two-

thirds majority of its membership, amend its own rules of Procedure provided that such amendments are not

inconsistent with the Agreement or with the Constitution of the FAO (Article II.7). The Commission may, by a

two-thirds majority of its membership, adopt (and amend) its own Financial regulations, (Article II.8). There are

at present no such Regulations adopted; the financial regulations of the Organization are applied for the

management of the budget of the Commission.

Any dispute regarding the interpretation or application of the Agreement is first to be settled by the Commission,

after which it shall be referred to a committee composed of one member appointed by each of the parties to the

dispute, and in addition an independent chairman chosen by the members of the committee. The

recommendations of the committee are not binding but become the basis for renewed consideration by the

parties concerned. If the dispute remains unsettled, it shall be referred to the International Court of Justice, unless

the parties to the dispute agree to another method of settlement (Article XVI).

2

Commission covers all living marine resources, including aquaculture, in the sea area with the

exception of internal waters.

Map. 1 : RECOFI geographical coverage

Source : www.fao.org/fishery/rfb/recofi/en “The Commission carries out its functions and responsibilities in the

region, bounded in the south by the following rhomb lines: from Ras Dhabat Ali in (16° 39‟N, 53° 3‟30"E) then to a

position in (16° 00‟N, 53° 25‟E) then to a position in (17° 00‟N, 56° 30‟E) then to a position in (20° 30‟N, 60° 00‟E)

then to Ras Al-Fasteh in (25° 04‟N, 61° 25‟E).

The main objective of the Agreement3 is to establish a regional fishery commission for promoting the

development, conservation, rational management and best utilization of living marine resources, as

well as the sustainable development of aquaculture in the Agreement Area.

2.2 The structure

Membership in RECOFI is open to Members and Associate Members of FAO as well as non-member

States of FAO, which are Members of the UN or its specialized agencies that are coastal States or

Associate Members which have territories situated wholly or partly within the Commission's area of

competence (Article II.2).

RECOFI is composed of a Commission and two subsidiary bodies. The Commission is the governing

body of RECOFI4.

The Commission may decide to establish temporary, special or standing committees and working

groups to study and recommend on specific technical problems (Article VII.1)5. In keeping with

3 Status of acceptance of the RECOFI Agreement: Kingdom of Bahrain (17 October 2008), Islamic Republic of

Iran (6 December 2001), Republic of Iraq (20 August 2008), State of Kuwait (19 May 2006), Sultanate of Oman

(19 December 2001), State of Qatar (12 July 2000), Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (3 November 2000), United Arab

Emirates (26 February 2001). 4 At its First Session in the Sultanate of Oman, in 2001, the Commission agreed that it would concern itself with

organizational, strategic and policy issues and on reviewing the work of subsidiary bodies (Report of the 1st

Session of the Commission, paragraph 12.ii). 5 At its first session, the Commission agreed that subsidiary bodies should address technical and scientific

matters and be established for such purpose (Report of the first session of the Commission, para.12.1 and 12.2).

It was also agreed that Member countries may, if they wish, bring national, bilateral and multilateral issues to the

consideration of the Commission and its technical members. It was however anticipated that the Commission

would give more emphasis to marine and fisheries issues of regional importance (Report of the 1st Session of the

Commission, paragraph12.1).

3

Article VII.3 of the RECOFI Agreement, the establishment of committees and working groups is

subject to the availability of necessary funds. The Secretary of the Commission makes available to the

Commission a report on the administrative and financial implications involved before a decision on

this matter is taken. At its First Session, in the Sultanate of Oman, October 2001, the Commission

agreed to establish two ad hoc Working Groups. These are: a working group on Aquaculture (WGA)

and a working group on Stock Assessment and Fishery Statistics. At the fourth session, held in Jeddah,

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, from 7 to 9 May 2007, the Commission decided to expand its current

Working Group on Stock Assessment and Fishery Statistics to a wider Working Group on Fisheries

Management (WGFM).

National focal points: at its first session, held in the Sultanate of Oman, October 2001, the

Commission agreed to communicate to the Secretary the name and title of country focal point to

RECOFI (First RECOFI Session Report, paragraph 12.viii).

Observers: at the proposal of the Secretary of the Commission, observers of these organizations may

be invited by the Commission to attend sessions of the Commission or meetings of the committees or

working groups (Article VIII). At its first session (October 2001), the Commission agreed to develop

and strengthen partnership arrangements and liaisons with other relevant organizations, including in

the first instance, the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Regional Organization for the Protection of the

Marine Environment, the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Center for Living

Aquatic Resources Management (currently the WorldFish Center) and other relevant organizations.

At its Fourth session in May 2007, the Commission identified and discussed a number of standing

problems constraining the Commission‟s functions, among which was the strengthening of the

Secretariat. As a result, in November 2007 FAO designated the Senior Fishery Officer assigned at the

Regional Office for the Near East and North Africa in Cairo (FAO RNE) to act as Secretary of

RECOFI. The Senior Fishery Officer took charge of his duties in February 2008.

FAO also nominated the Technical Secretary of the Working Group on Fisheries Management

(WGFM, formerly Working Group on Fishery Statistics, WGS). The Technical Secretary will support

and assist in the establishment of this new Working Group and in the revision of the former Working

Group on Fishery Statistics.

The Commission continued to benefit from the support provided by the Technical Secretary of the

Working Group on Aquaculture (WGA) and the Information Officer who coordinated the

development of the Regional Aquaculture Information System (RAIS). The RECOFI fishery statistics

database was regularly maintained and updated thanks to the FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture

Information and Statistics Service (FIES). The Secretariat further relied on consultancies to address

specific issues (e.g. fisheries statistics, fisheries legislation, information technology applications,

animal health, etc.). Lastly, the Secretariat continued to benefit from the efficient services provided by

the bilingual Secretary/Administrative Assistant.

2.3 The principal functions of RECOFI

The Commission, within its area of competence, is empowered to formulate and recommend

appropriate measures:

i) The conservation and management of living marine resources, including the following

measures:

- regulate fishing methods and fishing gear,

- prescribe the minimum size for individuals of specified species,

- establish open and closed fishing seasons and areas, and

4

- regulate the amount of total catch and fishing effort and their allocation among Members.

ii) For the purpose of implementing recommendations:

The Commission also has the ability to review the economic and social dimensions of the fishing

industry and recommend measures for its development; encourage, recommend and coordinate

training and extension activities; encourage, recommend, coordinate and undertake research and

development activities; assemble, publish and disseminate information regarding living marine

resources and fisheries based on these resources and carry out any other activities as may be necessary

for RECOFI to achieve its purpose as define in the Commission‟s Agreement.

Importantly, the Commission shall apply the precautionary approach with regards to conservation and

management decisions and take into account the best scientific advice available and the need to

promote the development and proper utilization of marine living resources.

2.4 Functioning and decision making

The Commission normally meets every year at the site and date the Commission determines

(Agreement, Article II.4). At its first session in Muscat, Oman, October 2001, the Commission agreed

to convene regular annual sessions during the first two weeks of the month of May6, starting on the

second Tuesday of the month of May (Report of the 1st Session of the Commission, paragraph xii.4).

In practice, the Commission has not been meeting annually but bi-annually as follows: the first session

was held in October 2001 (Sultanate of Oman), the second session in May 2003 (Sultanate of Oman),

the third session in May 2005 (State of Qatar), fourth session in May 2007 (Kingdom of Saudi

Arabia), and the fifth session in May 2009 (United Arab Emirates). As a management body and as per

Article II.4 of the Agreement, it cannot be excluded that the Commission will in future meet annually.

The Commission may take recommendations for action into consideration by Members7 on any matter

pertaining to the functions above described (Rule XV.1). Consideration for management measures and

decisions are included in the provisional agenda of the regular session and circulated to Members

together with the provisional agenda not less than sixty days before the date of the session (Rules IV.1

and IV.3). Since its establishment the Commission has adopted no recommendation.

Proposals for consideration by the Commission may also come from subsidiary bodies. The process is

the same as above. Working Groups‟ proposals are compiled and analyzed by the Secretary for

submission to the Commission for consideration. The Commission takes decisions and makes

recommendations as appropriate by consensus or by voting.

A Member of the Commission that is in arrears in the payment of its financial contributions to,has no

vote in the Commission if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions

due from it for the two preceding calendar years. The Commission may, nevertheless, permit such a

6 Second session, in May 2003 (Sultanate of Oman), third session in May 2004 (State of Qatar), fourth session in

May 2005 (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia), fifth session, in May 2006 (United Arab Emirates), sixth session in May

2007 (State of Bahrain), seventh session in May 2008 (Islamic Republic of Iran), eighth session in May 2009

(Republic of Iraq), ninth session in May 2010 (State of Kuwait). 7 The Members of the Commission commit to the implementation of recommendations from the date determined

by the Commission, which shall not be before the period for objection (Article V.2). The objection period is one

hundred and twenty days from the date of notification of the recommendation by the Chairperson of the

Commission (acting through the Secretariat). Any member of the Commission may within this period object to

the recommendation and in that event is not under obligation to give effect to that recommendation (Article V.3).

A member may at any time withdraw its objection and give effect to a recommendation. The Chairperson

notifies each member immediately upon receipt of each objection or withdrawal of objection (Article V.4).

5

Member to vote if it is satisfied that the failure to pay was due to conditions beyond the control of the

Member but in no case shall it extend the right to vote beyond a further two calendar years (Article

IX.7).

Box. 1: Process applied where individual States propose an action

- I -

Members send proposals for consideration by the Commission to the Secretary (Rule XV.1).

- II -

The Chair – acting through the Secretary – communicates to each Member of the Commission

the text of such proposals (Article V.1).

- III -

The Secretary receives Members‟ replies in respect of such proposals and prepares a summary

and an analysis of the replies for presentation at the next session (Rule XV.2).

- IV -

The Commission considers the proposals during the regular session. It is the usual practice for the fishery bodies

established within the framework of FAO to adopt decisions and recommendations by consensus or, by voting if

a consensus cannot be achieved. Each member of the Commission has one vote (Article II.2). Participation of

alternates, experts, and advisers do not posess the right to vote, except where an alternate is acting in the place of

a delegate in his or her absence. Decisions of regional fisheries bodies such as the RECOFI are usually taken by

a majority of the votes cast (Article II.2). Recommendations regarding management measures are adopted by a

two-thirds majority of members of the Commission present and voting (Article V.1).

- V -

The Commission transmits the adopted conclusions and recommendations to the Director-General of FAO at the

close of each session. The Director General circulates them to Members of the Commission, nations and

international organizations that were represented at the session and make them available to other Members and

Associate Members of the Organization for their information (Rule XIV.4).

Working groups are governed by the Rules of Procedure of the Commission (Rule X.2). In the same

manner as the Commission, Working Groups elect a Chairperson and a Vice Chairperson. The

Chairpersons have complete control over the proceedings of the meetings. FAO provides a Technical

Secretary who is responsible for facilitating the work of the Working Group and for coordinating the

preparation of working documents.

National focal points: the Secretariat intends to propose for adoption at the Fifth Session of the

Commission the TORs for RECOFI country focal points. Subject to their adoption, the focal points

will have an advisory and liaison function with respect to the programme of work of the Commission

and the relevance of the latter to the national policy of fisheries development and management. He/She

will be:

In direct contact with the RECOFI Secretariat; Informed by the RECOFI Secretariat on the most

important Commission activities planned and under implementation at the regional level;

Considered at the head of the RECOFI Secretariat mailing list and be provided with all the

technical output;

Informed on all the activities carried out at national level.

6

At the end of each Session, the Commission approves a report embodying its views, recommendations,

resolutions and decisions, including, when requested a statement of minority views (Rule XIV.3). The

Commission transmits after each session the report to the Director-General of FAO (Article VI).

Copies of all communications concerning the affairs of the Commission are sent to the Secretary for

purposes of information and record (Rule V).

2.5 Budget and finances

RECOFI’s core budget is funded by the contributions of the Member countries of the Commission,

which pay their share annually. The practice has been for Member countries to pay their share of the

budget on an equal basis, i.e. USD 5 000 per country per year. The annual core budget of the

Commission is currently of USD 40 0008.

In the formulation and negotiation of the Agreement there was a consensus that the annual core budget

should cover the cost of RECOFI meetings and the cost of publications of the reports and of any

studies prepared as a result of workshops. The costs of cooperative activities would be divided into the

RECOFI Members depending on the nature of the activities and interest of these countries, subject to

the approval of the Commission.

The core budget of RECOFI takes the form of a multi-lateral trust-fund project with the FAO symbol

MTF/REM/001/MUL and title “Support to the Secretariat of RECOFI”. The project began in April

2003 and since then has been renewed on a yearly basis. Its budget is revised regularly in order to

monitor annual contributions by Member countries and the cash flow of expenditures. The book-

keeping activity continued to be ensured through the FAO central accounting system (based on

Oracle).

At the time of negotiation, it was recommended that FAO extend to RECOFI the same level of

administrative and budgetary support as was formerly provided to the former Gulfs Committee. FAO

currently provides i) the seat of the Commission, hosted by the Regional Office for the Near East and

North Africa in Cairo, ii) the Secretariat, headed by an FAO staff member, Mr Piero Mannini, and iii)

the technical and legal backstopping. The Commission may decide in future to relocate the Secretariat

within the Agreement area after consultation with the Director-General of FAO and at its own expense

(Article II.5).

Expenses not funded by the core budget of the Commission but instead funded by governments or

organisations concern:

The expenses incurred by delegates, their alternates, experts and advisers when attending, as

government representatives, sessions of the Commission, its committees and working groups

(Article X.1).

The expenses incurred by observers at sessions (Article X.1).

The expenses of research and development projects undertaken by individual Members of the

Commission, whether independently or upon recommendation of the Commission (Article X.3).

The expenses incurred in connection with cooperative projects (Article III.1.e) unless the budget

is otherwise available.

8 There are at present no financial regulations governing the administration of the budget of RECOFI,

consequently the financial regulations of the FAO apply to the Commission. Article IX.1 states that „Each

Member of the Commission undertakes to pay annually its share of the budget for cooperative activities’.

Articles X.1 and X.2 state that “the expenses of experts invited by the Commission to attend, in their individual

capacity, meetings of the Commission, its committees or working groups shall be borne by the budget of the

Commission” and “the expenses for publications and communications and the expenses incurred by the

Chairperson and Vice-Chairpersons of the Commission, when performing duties on behalf of the Commission

between Commission sessions shall be determined and paid for from the budget of the Commission”.

7

At each regular session, the Commission adopts its budget through consensus by its Members. If, after

every effort has been made, a consensus cannot be reached in the course of that session, the matter is

put to a vote and the budget is adopted by a two-thirds majority of its Members (Article IX.2).

Member countries‟ contributions and donations and other forms of assistance received are placed in a

Trust Fund administered by FAO in conformity with the Financial Regulations of the Organization

(Article IX.6).

3. REVIEW OF THE RECENT ACTIVITIES

The technical review of activities refers to the four last RECOFI Sessions (Session II Muscat, 2003,

Session III Doha 2005, Session IV Jeddah, 2007 and Session V Dubai 2009).

3.1 Technical Review of debates and activities

The technical review of debates and activities can be presented according to the following main themes:

statistics and resources survey for the RECOFI area,

aquaculture ,

other general fisheries management issues,

relationships with other international organizations and non RECOFI member states.

3.1.1 Reported landings for the RECOFI-mandated area

During the session II, the commission reviewed reported landings for the member countries of

RECOFI. Particular note was made of two issues: (a) the variable national practices in disaggregation

of reported data by taxonomic level (i.e., to family, genus, species level, etc.) and (b), the need for

improved geographical resolution, i.e., where fish were landed.

The need to be clear about the objectives of data collection programmes was noted. The major goal

was collection of data for resource management. Emphasis ought to be on stocks that are exploited by

more than one country. Species or species groups of particular attention are: Sciaenidae, shrimp,

Scomberomorus, cuttlefish, Lethrinidae, Serranids (a complex of >30 species, of which seven were of

particular importance).

Discussion focussed on what regional arrangements for handling of fisheries statistics would be

desirable and how they might be undertaken. The issues to be resolved include: (a) what are the

desirable levels of disaggregation of statistics in terms of taxonomic identification; (b) geographical

disaggregation; (c) assistance in developing acceptable data collection (i.e. design of survey

programmes); and (d) processing procedures that can be harmonized across the region. Should a

regional centre be established, it would require appropriate terms of reference, staffing and budget. It

was agreed that a working group to examine this issue may be the way to proceed in this manner.

The Secretariat raised the issue of the establishment of a RECOFI statistics working group and the

Commission agreed that the FAO Statistics and Information Service (FIPS) of the Fisheries and

Aquiculture Department is requested to work with the Commission‟s member countries to increase the

level of taxonomic disaggregation of reported landings that are reported in the FAO Nominal Fisheries

Landing Database. FIPS was asked to maintain data reported by RECOFI countries disaggregated into

the Statistical Sub-regional Areas of 51.2 and 51.3. In the case of Sub-Area 51.3, a further division

should be made to separate the area of the Gulf of Oman from the North-western Arabian Sea. This

information should be made available in FAO‟s main Nominal Fisheries Landing Database.

There was general agreement as to the need for regular demersal surveys in the RECOFI-mandated

area as part of normal fisheries management practices. FAO stated that demersal surveys were

important and that the successful experience of the UAE in undertaking a similar survey could be used

as a model for future programmes.

8

During the RECOFI Session III, FIDI promotes the improvement of the species breakdown in the

reported catch statistics. Some countries in the region are making statistics available for a number of

major species, although it may result in some disruption of the data series and in their analysis. Note

was made of the new species identification guide for sharks that had been prepared for the Red Sea

and Gulf of Aden and the possibility, if funds would be identified, to produce a similar one for the

RECOFI area. Improved identification of shark catches would allow a wider range of shark species to

be included in the reported catch statistics.

A demonstration of the FISHSTAT+ system was provided. A short presentation on catch trends was

made noting that total regional catches had been increasing by about 3.5 percent per year though there

had been fluctuations in the trend between some years. Different levels of species breakdowns

throughout the years is complicating the interpretation of long-term trends of fish species or groups of

species. Particular note was made of trends in the landing statistics of valuable species groups like

tuna, crustaceans and molluscs, for which the catch trends by the two divisions were shown.

The Strategy for Improving Information on Status and Trends of Capture Fisheries (Strategy-STF) was

introduced. The request by the Commission of a comparative survey of the fisheries data collection

systems in the region would fit under Component 1 of the Strategy-STF. Several delegates requested

FAO help in improving the quality of fisheries data that are collected through development of

harmonized methods.

Particular concern was expressed regarding the state of groupers and other demersal resources in the

Commission area. Trends for national catches were shown; however, it was noted that a demonstration

of CPUE (Catch per unit efforts) was not possible through data in FISHSTAT+ alone as it does not

include data on effort. The collection of fishing effort data on a regular basis was progressively

stopped by other Regional Fishery Bodies (RFBs) due to low returns and difficulties in standardizing

units of measurement; presently only one Commission (Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization –

NAFO) continues to collect this type of data.

There was general agreement as to the need for regular demersal surveys in the RECOFI area as part

of normal fisheries management practices. One member expressed agreement to the suggestion in the

background paper of extending RECOFI activities to the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden areas as well as

the issuing of a periodic RECOFI bulletin. FAO stated that demersal surveys were important and that

the successful experience of the UAE in undertaking a similar survey could be used as a model for

future programmes.

During the Session IV, several delegates observed that FAO ought to place more effort in assisting

RECOFI countries to evaluate and improve the fisheries statistical programmes. Such assistance

should include field missions aimed at closing existing data gaps and improving the performance of

national data collection systems.

It was recognized that a satisfactory degree of regional comparability, particularly in species

nomenclatures (harmonization), ought to be reached by the RECOFI member countries and that this

issue should be brought forward at the next meeting of the RECOFI Working Group on Statistics

(WGS). In view to not cause disruption to national historical data and time series at the national level,

regional harmonisation does not require the introduction of a single statistical system but rather the

establishment of logical links between national species and gear classifications with the view of

making national fisheries statistics comparable at a commonly agreed level of detail. The Commission

agreed that such issues should be regularly reviewed by the WGS.

Some countries expressed the view that the WGS‟s role and functions ought to be described more

accurately. It was also proposed that the WGS role should be expanded to handle not only statistical

but also evaluation, assessment and management aspects, particularly in the case of shared resources

as originally envisaged when the Working Group was established.

9

3.1.2 Aquaculture

RECOFI WGA

The Secretariat raised the issue of the establishment of a RECOFI Aquaculture working group9. In the

technical aquaculture meeting immediately preceding the Second Session of RECOFI (18–19 May

2003, Muscat, Oman), a working document with recommendations on the form and structure of the

aquaculture body along with a proposed work programme for 2003–2004 was prepared and submitted

to the Commission for consideration and approval.

The Commission endorsed the recommendation to establish a standing Working Group on

Aquaculture (WGA) and its Terms of Reference. It was agreed that this structure would enable the

WGA to retain the flexibility required for it to carry out its mandate and work plan, following

submission and approval by the Commission during its annual session. The Commission approved the

proposed WGA structure, its focus on marine and brackish water aquaculture, and for it to convene on

an annual basis prior to the regular Commission Session.

It was agreed that the Focal Point for Bahrain would act as the WGA Interim-Chairperson, as Bahrain

proposed to convene and host the First Annual Meeting of the WGA. Furthermore, it was agreed that

the first WGA Chairperson would then be officially nominated during the First Annual Meeting of the

WGA in Bahrain. The agenda for the First Annual Meeting of the WGA would be drafted by the

Interim-Chairperson in close collaboration with the RECOFI Secretariat and circulated to all the WGA

Focal Points well in advance in order to allow suggestions, modifications, and sufficient time to

collect data and reports that may be required at the meeting.

Regional Aquaculture Information System (RAIS)

During the Session III, the Secretariat presented a document on the progress made for the

establishment of the RAIS. The Commission expressed its appreciation on the proposed structure of

the regional information system and strongly recommended to go ahead with this project. It was also

agreed by the Commission that the RECOFI Country hosting the Regional Centre would provide the

estimated funds required for the development of the system. The delegate of Kuwait confirmed their

strong interest in hosting the Centre. Furthermore, it was agreed that the system should be developed

by FAO as soon as the necessary funds would be made available by the hosting country (contribution

of USD30 000 was received from the Government of Kuwait as extra-budgetary funds for the

development of RAIS).

During the Session IV, the WGA agreed to make it possible for private companies to advertise on the

RAIS website to generate funds to support further development of the system and provide financing to

information activities of regional interest, such as production statistics analysis, marketing studies, and

regional aquaculture reviews.

The Secretariat reported the future steps agreed by the WGA to finalize the information system by the

end of 2007, which include web site development, establishment of the Regional and National

Centres, training of the system administrators, preparation of the user manual and, official launching

9 During the technical meeting held in Kuwait, 16–18 February 2003, the participants from the RECOFI member

countries recommended that a working aquaculture body be formally established. The draft Terms of Reference

for this aquaculture body were discussed and drafted.

10

and promotion of the RAIS. The Commission endorsed the RAIS work plan and timeframe as

presented.

During Session V, Members welcomed the presentation on RAIS. They recommended that it be

developed further and strengthened, particularly by supporting the communication strategy by the

RAIS National Coordinators/National Focal Points and by establishing national networks of

authorized data entry users. The Secretariat reminded Members that the structure of the information

system was complete. However, to ensure the system‟s utility all Members should continue to input

continuously validated national data and information to ensure that it remained up to date.

Legal and policy framework for Aquaculture

The FAO Legal Consultant presented a regional project proposal to strengthen the legal and policy

framework for aquaculture of RECOFI Member countries. During its second session (Muscat, Oman,

18–21 May 2003), the Commission identified the evaluation of existing aquaculture legislation and the

adoption of common regulations at a regional level as a priority activity of the WGA. During its first

meeting (Manama, Bahrain, 18–20 April 2004), the WGA further discussed the level of legislation

development among the Member countries and recommended the Secretariat to seek assistance from

FAO through a preparatory mission to develop a regional project proposal. At the same meeting, it

was stated that a preparatory mission would not guarantee FAO‟s financial support to the project and

countries were invited to explore other funding possibilities.

The preparatory mission took place from 13 to 26 March 2005 in Bahrain, Oman and Saudi Arabia.

Following the recommendations of the WGA, a comprehensive approach was taken and the mission

consisted of a Legal Expert, an Aquaculture Expert and an Aquaculture Policy Expert. A mission

report was subsequently prepared and submitted to FAO. The report included the findings on the

policy, institutional and legal framework of the visited countries as well as conclusions and

recommendations including a draft project proposal prepared according to the TCP format. The draft

project proposal was distributed at the session.

The background and justification for the project were summarized. First, it was stressed that in some

instances the sustainable development of the sector is hindered by a lack of policy and planning to

provide a reference point for management and development of the sector and by institutional

constraints due to a lack of technical capacity and/or weak institutional arrangements. Second, the

legislative arrangements for the management and development of aquaculture are generally uncertain

and inappropriate. In particular, there is a need to streamline authorization processes, address the

environmental impacts of aquaculture, introduce and harmonize legislation on aquatic animal health

certification, quarantine measures and the quality and safety of aquaculture products. Finally,

monitoring and enforcement provisions can be improved.

The objective of the project is therefore to strengthen the policy, institutional and legal framework for

aquaculture in the RECOFI Member countries in order to increase the contribution of the sector to the

economy and food security, and to develop and manage the sector in a sustainable manner. A regional

approach is opportune since it will lead to harmonization of laws and regulations and thus facilitate

regional trade of aquatic animals and aquaculture products. In addition, not all the countries have

similar access to the specialised advice that is required to update national legal frameworks.

During Session IV, the delegates of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Kuwait and Oman confirmed that in

principle they had no objection in contributing their share and indicated that they would officially

inform the Secretariat of their position as soon as possible and not later than the end of August 2007.

The Secretariat was also invited to send an official letter to the member countries requesting them to

confirm their commitment in supporting the project and the date when the funds could be transferred

to the RECOFI account. Due to the difficulty of securing the funding within the current financial year,

the Commission acknowledged that the funds may only be available by April 2008.

11

During Session V the Secretariat advised the Commission that the project proposal to develop a legal

and policy aquaculture framework in the region was presented initially at the third RECOFI session. It

was noted that only two Members had paid their agreed share of the project budget. The Commission

reviewed the situation regarding this long-standing activity concerning equal co-funding of projects

and requested the Secretariat to resend the official and original letter to Members urging them to

provide their contribution.

Other issues for WGA

The Commission agreed that the issues related to marine stock enhancement and artificial reefs should be

further discussed within the terms of references of the WGA. The delegate of Bahrain proposed to host an

ad hoc meeting of the WGA on these issues. It was noted that the presence of international experts would

be appropriate.

During Session IV, the issues of stock enhancement and the use of artificial reefs were debated again

and some members observed that stock enhancement issues were not closely linked to the functions

and mandate of the WGA. It was agreed that the WGA should take into consideration matters

involving production of fingerlings for stock enhancement and collaborate with fisheries experts who

could be part of a proposed ad hoc Working Group on Stock Enhancement. The Commission

welcomed the offer of Bahrain to host a working group meeting on this topic as well as the offer of the

Islamic Republic of Iran to organize a regional seminar to present the results and current findings from

their national artificial reef programme. The Commission recommended that the WGA examine the

issue of artificial reefs as suitable nursery areas for releasing hatchery produced fingerlings of selected

species of commercial interest in the region.

Regarding the introduction of exotic species, and acting upon the request of the Third RECOFI

Session, the WGA addressed the risks from the introduction of exotic species, and noted that their

control is required even though some species had enabled commercial developments. Guidelines based

on the recommendations of several organizations were noted and the WGA proposed precautionary

approach procedures.

Among the emerging issues identified in Session V, several Members recognized that the phenomenon

of harmful algal blooms (HABs) was an urgent technical issue to be addressed. Although this

phenomenon was not new in the region, recent outbreaks had caused serious damages to fish cage

culture throughout the region, particularly in Oman and the United Arab Emirates where commercial

companies had lost their entire production. It was noted that red tide also seriously affected capture

fisheries.

The major output of the workshop on aquatic animal health (Jeddah, Saudi Arabia,

6–10 April 2008) was the “Proposal for a regional programme for improving aquatic animal health in

RECOFI member countries”. The proposal, along with its components, elements and activities, was

endorsed by the Commission. It was noted that the report of the workshop (RECOFI/V/2009/Inf.6)

provided an excellent roadmap for Members to follow. It included actions and activities that would be

implemented incrementally, some at the national level and others as regionally coordinated activities.

RECOFI noted that the focus of the workshop had been on environmental impact assessment,

environmental monitoring and aquaculture licensing. Two guiding proposals for an Environmental

Impact Assessment (EIA) framework and licensing procedure were formulated at the workshop. It was

recalled that the region required the development of clear protocols and transparent legislation that

would enable the sector to expand by encouraging and promoting environmentally and economically

sustainable private investment.

12

3.1.3 General fisheries management issues

During Session II, the FAO Fisheries Department Fishing Technology Service (FIIT), presented

document RECOFI/2003/6 in response to a FAO directive that Vessel Monitoring System (VMS)

issues be brought to the attention of all regional fisheries commissions. Member countries of RECOFI

were advised to consider becoming members of the Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS)

Network so as to keep abreast of recent developments in MCS and VMS technologies. In response to a

question about the applicability of VMS technology to the region, it was agreed that VMS use in the

immediate future may be limited in the region because of the large number of small vessels. However,

as costs declined (current capital costs on the on-vessel transmitter was approximately USD 600 to

USD 2 000 depending on the system used), VMS would become feasible even for these small vessels.

During Session V, after amendments, the terms of reference for the Working Group on Fisheries

Management were adopted by the Commission and the revised terms of reference have been produced.

The Commission endorsed the RECOFI Regional Strategy and Priorities for Regional Fisheries

Management, including a workplan, and adopted the terms of reference for the National Focal Points

on Fisheries Management. As a point of clarification the Secretariat noted that Members would not be

obliged to implement the terms of reference but that they would be encouraged to do so in the interest

of promoting better fisheries management in the region.

3.1.4 Relationship with other international organizations and non-RECOFI member states

In 2003, during the second session, it was asked how the RECOFI Secretariat could play a part in the

Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) fisheries activities, particularly demersal surveys. The Secretariat

replied that ad hoc meetings were planned with both the GCC and the Regional Organization for the

Protection of Marine Environment (ROPME).

The Secretariat advised that some Red Sea countries had requested their own regional fisheries

commission. It was suggested that cooperative projects, (including demersal surveys) with other

countries, rather than full membership of RECOFI by other countries may be a way of establishing

initial contacts in areas of common interest.

During Session III, the delegate from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) noted the

overlap of the issues addressed by RECOFI with those of other Regional/International Organizations

(UNEP, Regional Organization for the Protection of the Marine Environment [ROPME], Regional

Organization for Conservation of the Environment of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden [PERSGA]) and

recommended the coordination of efforts in this regard, including the development of a “Regional

Action Programme”, or enhancing/utilizing existing ones, on the protection of marine

environment/ecosystems and the sustainable management of marine resources.

During Session V, it was suggested that the two RECOFI Working Groups should consider planning a

joint activity covering this issue in close cooperation with other regional organizations, such as the

Regional Organization for the Protection of the Marine Environment (ROPME). Members also

emphasized the significance of cooperating with other organizations concerned with fisheries

management such as the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC). Members encouraged the

Secretariat to seek cooperation and partnership with other organizations in the region, mainly the

standing committee for fisheries of the GCC that were involved with fisheries and fisheries-related

issues.

13

4. TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW BY ISSUES10

The following issues are addressed by the technical performance review

- Knowledge regarding the status of resources and fisheries, data collection and sharing

- Knowledge regarding the status of aquaculture

- Regional dimensions of the fishing and aquaculture sectors

- Decision making, transparency, participation and methods to : define the Commission Strategy,

implement the strategy, and assess the results

- Quality and provision of scientific advice and economic and social analysis

- Decision making process to adopt Commission recommendations and measures

- Capacity-Building, Training and Technical Assistance

- Communication and information

- Organization and financing: scenarios for the future

4.1 Knowledge regarding the status of resources and fisheries, data collection and

sharing

Assessment

As soon as it became operational, RECOFI organized a work programme on the issue of fisheries

statistics based on a progressive approach and the FAO statistical system. By doing so, RECOFI

created a working environment aiming to promote the quality and the exchange of statistical data

within its area of action. FAO (FIPS) support was widely and appropriately used and an approach

aiming to improve the quality of data on the basis of a statistical reorganization was promoted. This

was followed by the progressive harmonisation of the organization, validation and presentation tools

used for production data. At the same time, current systems were preserved in order not to disrupt

existing time series. This work was accompanied by improvements in the description of sectors,

fisheries, stocks, shared or common species thanks to contributions from national delegations during

sessions or meetings of the working group. However, this does not mean that work on the

classification and documentation of the state of resources and fisheries is completed. It should

continue in order to fulfil the countries‟ expectations concerning the statistical knowledge of the

stocks, the resources and the fisheries. As yet, there are no consolidated data at RECOFI level on the

state of the stock (assessment and dynamics), nor are there sufficiently reliable data on the results of

fishing capacity and effort deployed in the RECOFI zone according to international scientific

standards. At Commission level, no systematic, common or standardised evaluations are yet

available, there are no common fleet registries, no data concerning standardised fishing effort

indicators, let alone eco-systemic indicators.

Current achievements, although relevant and coherent given the resources available within the

Commission, are limited to data monitoring fisheries rather than stocks (fishing potential, MSY,

abundance index, catch size frequency, etc). The series still have significant gaps (cf.

RECOFI/V/2009/6). It is not yet possible to produce management recommendations to support

national decisions. Efforts should be directed towards the joint programming of stock assessment

studies through genuine scientific cooperation. The diversity of national contexts and of systems and

capacity to monitor fisheries makes this cooperation difficult to envisage. Nonetheless, RECOFI has

managed to commit the Member countries and generate a strong interest in developing this work,

following technical terms adopted and agreed by all Members. All the fisheries statistics work stages

appear to be coherent, in particular as regards FAO involvement and the linkages with its fisheries

statistical system. This represents a starting point for broadening RECOFI‟s work ambitions

according to national demands and expectations and with increased financial commitment (Member

10

This section is based on the review of the available RECOFI documentation and on the Members‟ response to

a questionnaire purposely prepared (Annex 5 and 6)

14

Countries or external partners through a project for the joint assessment of exploitable resource

potential).

Recommendations

The Commission mandate should evolve towards a more ambitious knowledge production

programme. This requires the creation of a Scientific, Economic and Technical Committee which

could help with the formulation, the institutional framework and the management of a project or an

action plan related to the production of data required to formulate recommendations.

The current process should therefore be pursued with a greater contribution from Member countries

and/or the external support of a partner. Greater understanding of national contexts and greater

involvement of fisheries sector professionals and the national bodies with stock assessment skills

should be promoted within the RECOFI framework, perhaps through an initiative aiming to develop a

work plan on this issue (Conference on common bio-economic potentials and on the ecosystem

indicators to be measured). This also involves a more thorough data analysis within the framework of

stock and resource classification according to their strictly national or regional interest. These efforts

should now be pursued within the framework of the Working Group for Fisheries Management

(WGFM).

Work on the issue of management units for regional and strictly national stocks should be undertaken

from a RECOFI perspective. This work should constitute the framework to organize RECOFI‟s work

and future efforts aiming to consolidate national systems (institutional capacity building for fisheries

policy definition and contribution to fisheries governance in particular as regards its regional

dimension).The selected approach for improving the quality of statistical monitoring should be

complemented now by some support to national technical capacity related to the harmonisation work

already completed.

This process should respect each national system‟s characteristics and be based on more significant

operational and financial resources in order to increase the long-term involvement of national

institutions. RECOFI could then progressively acquire regional data in line with fisheries

management standards (management unit, management plan …) that could be useful to supranational

governance according to the needs defined by the resources and the fisheries.

Data related to stocks, catches, fishing capacity and effort should be part of a wider set of ecosystem

data and de facto be completed as soon as possible with economic data specific to the fisheries sector.

This work should raise the awareness of and rally Members and partners on the economic potential of

the fisheries sector as well as on the bio-economic risks related to the absence or weakness of

fisheries management policies (resource rent dissipation, conflict, stock depletion, etc). Such data

should also constitute a useful decision-making basis for each of the common investments in fisheries

management services (such as research and stock assessment, monitoring, control and surveillance,

and international agreement negotiation, etc) and assist fiscal and incentive policies towards a greater

contribution from the sector to the economic growth of marine areas.

RECOFI should as soon as possible launch a regional technical work programme in order to structure

information bases and develop further, through common, standardised and comparable statistical

protocols, the cooperation between Member countries by integrating all the eco-systemic parameters.

This could be the responsibility of an internal RECOFI substructure in charge of data such as an

„economic, scientific and technical fisheries observatory”. The purpose of such an observatory would

be to promote partnerships between public institutions, professional and scientific organizations.

15

4.2 Knowledge about the status of Aquaculture

Assessment

The early decision to create a Working Group on Aquaculture (WGA) has greatly contributed to the

development of a set of coordinated and technical studies to support cooperation between Member

countries. This group‟s dynamics benefited from FAO commitment in two ways, through the

permanent involvement of technical aquaculture staff and through national staff who benefited from

targeted extra-budgetary funding in particular from RAIS activities (Kuwait funds). This mutual

commitment quickly led to conclusive results concerning aquaculture information systems and to the

sharing of current achievements between Member countries and other partners via a standardised and

transparent system. Within the WGA, the contributions made to common aquaculture issues made it

possible to address the following: marine stock enhancement and artificial reefs, matters involving

production of fingerlings for stock enhancement, artificial reefs as suitable nursery areas for releasing

hatchery produced fingerlings of selected species of commercial interest in the region, risks from

introduction of exotic species, phenomenon of harmful algal blooms (HABs), the “Proposal for a

regional programme for improving aquatic animal health in RECOFI member countries”, guidelines

for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) framework and licensing procedure...). It should be

noted that the success of the RAIS project is also due to the way it was funded (unilateral contribution

from Kuwait) which strengthened the Commission‟s resources for this target action and the technical

skills and funding brought by FAO. Unfortunately, the other source of funding (equal and voluntary

contributions from each country which is a stakeholder in the project) that was recommended to

support the transversal and very important issue of "institutional and legal framework for aquaculture

in the RECOFI Member countries" did not succeed and is still pending.

There is no doubt that aquaculture has benefited from this active process as a result of the resources,

the motivation, the human capacity available and the particular ways in which it was funded.

Nevertheless, the work accomplished so far is not sufficient to meet the objectives assigned to the

Commission. RECOFI has played a federating role in resources and human capacity (FAO and

Member countries with the involvement of some leader and donor countries) on an issue that was

more necessary than difficult (information systems) and where technical support could be transferred

from other RFBs (i.e. GFCM).

The WGA process has also led to debates on common issues. However a truly common approach to

launch and drive a work programme harmonising and/or establishing a regional aquaculture centre of

excellence remains to be developed. Member countries‟ motivation and commitment to this higher

objective will determine whether exchanges continue on the basis of the established information

system. The latter cannot continue to perform without greater autonomization. This implies greater

involvement by Member countries and particularly the creation of an active regional network built

around a cooperation policy based on a strategy of common or regional interests (production,

financial, bio-ecological, technico-economic, commercial, environmental …).

The running and the programming of the WGA seem to correspond to RECOFI‟s ambitions but lack

strong commitment from Member countries and sufficient financial autonomy. This could, in the long

term, restrict progress which is significantly supported by staff outside the Member countries.

Recommendations

Pursue and consolidate RAIS through the facilitation, within RECOFI, of a network of experts and

potential decision-makers in order to contribute to the sustainable development of aquaculture in the

region. Pursue, through RECOFI, the dialogue between Member countries towards a strategy for the

development of aquaculture programmes according to environmental standards, risk prevention and

the strengthening of economic, commercial and food interests in the area. A network of experts should

be set up which would contribute to RAIS and lead to exchanges with the sector‟s operators within a

policy framework for the controlled and sustainable development of aquaculture activities. RAIS and

16

the WGA should pool their knowledge within a Committee open to actors and decision-makers. The

WGA should seek increased commitment from RECOFI Member countries through appropriate

programmes. Lessons can be learnt from the failed planned funding of the legislative harmonisation

work and from the success of RAIS and the way it was funded, and RECOFI can, on the basis of an

appropriate project document, begin the work programme planned on the theme of “strengthening the

policy, the institutional and legal framework for aquaculture in the RECOFI Member countries”.

4.3 Regional dimensions of the fishing sectors

Activities, decisions and experiences

Even if in the RECOFI region fisheries may appear to be of low importance in economic terms,

marine fisheries production was nonetheless around 700 000 tonnes in 2007. This is a substantial

volume of fish that contributes significantly to food security. Furthermore, capture fisheries employ

more than 100 000 fishers and generate around 400 000 jobs in secondary activities such as

processing. Overall, fisheries in the region assure the livelihoods of probably more than one million

people.

The RECOFI region is characterized by rich marine biodiversity and productive ecosystems

(the Gulf and the Sea of Oman), supporting valuable fishery stocks. Coastal countries benefit from the

goods and services from these ecosystems, share many of the fishery resources as well as the

responsibility for their sound management.

Turning to the issue of governance, it is recognized that regional fisheries management

organizations or arrangements (RFMO/As), such as RECOFI, are the cornerstones of international

fisheries governance and for this reason regional cooperation should be strengthened. We know that

many regional fisheries problems can be solved through effective consultation and the timely

exchange of information. These activities are essential to the work of RFMO/As. Such cooperation is

critical in dealing with common issues such as fish stock assessment, illegal, unreported and

unregulated fishing, management of fisheries exploiting shared stocks, harmonization of data formats

and aquaculture sector development and management. Moreover, the international and regional

dimension of governance and sustainable development of aquaculture are being recognized gradually

and coming to the forefront of policy discussion and debate.

Small-scale fisheries mainly exploit the stocks of demersal species in the Gulf area and pelagic fish

stocks in the Sea of Oman. Nevertheless the shared nature of many of the stocks could make national

fishery resources assessments and management initiatives of limited use in developing effective

management plans. The 2001 FAO International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate

Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IPOA−IUU) stated clearly the primary role of regional

fisheries bodies such as the RECOFI in combating IUU fishing.

The delegate of Iraq with the support of the delegates from Islamic Republic of Iran and Kuwait

requested the Secretariat to facilitate sub-regional cooperation among the three countries to address

fisheries issues of common concern, including IUU fishing. After considerable discussion on the

matter, the Commission agreed that the Secretariat should support, on an ad hoc basis, a sub-regional

meeting among the three Members with the view to promote enhanced cooperation. The Commission

agreed further that the Secretariat should liaise directly with the three Members concerning

arrangements for the meeting.

At its fifth session (Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 12–14 May 2009), the Commission agreed that:

future work on stock assessment should focus on priority species supporting main fisheries of

common interest. These species were identified at the second meeting of the Working Group on

Fisheries Management (WGFM) (Cairo, Egypt, 27–30 October 2008) following a request by the

fourth of the Commission (Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, 7–9 May 2009);

17

there was considerable merit in standardizing information and reporting at the regional level in

relation to stock assessment and that RECOFI should promote such harmonization; and

an ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF) and adaptive management procedures should be

adopted. This approach should provide the framework within which fisheries management is

pursued within the region.

To commence implementing fully the Commission‟s fisheries mandate, Members should consider

appropriate harmonized fisheries management measures that could be adopted and implemented in a

coordinated way for stocks of common interest. Such harmonization can be expected to yield

important benefits including, for example, enhanced resource sustainability including fewer stock

declines and collapses, more stable and improved financial returns for fishers and fishing communities

and a more reliable contribution of fisheries to food security.

To encourage broader support for the identification, development and implementation of management

measures, Members are urged also to promote stakeholder consultation (e.g. with fishers‟ associations

and industry groups) and involvement in decision making. If stakeholders have been engaged in a

consultative process, they are likely to champion and support the implementation of management

measures, going so far as to monitor and enforce them among their membership. In addition, it has

been demonstrated in fisheries that support from stakeholders can reduce significantly the cost of

fisheries monitoring, control and surveillance and improve the impact of management measures.

Assessment

As little is known about available resources and because of the diversity in marine environments

covered by the RECOFI zone (Gulf and Sea of Oman), co-operation between neighbouring countries

is imperative and gives marine issues a regional dimension. Whether in an open or closed zone, this

co-operation is imperative as regards both the monitoring, control and surveillance of fishing activities

given the great mobility of fishers and the circulation of marketed products. The region‟s

geomorphology imposes, therefore, that information should be shared and that co-operation between

the Gulf and Sea of Oman States is essential.

At the regional level, in order to improve fisheries governance, RECOFI has to develop the ongoing

activities to strengthen the legal and policy framework to combat IUU fishing and their essential role

for the regional harmonization of fisheries management. RECOFI has to take into account the main

components of post-UNCED instruments, including the 1993 FAO Agreement to Promote Compliance

with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas

(1993 FAO Compliance Agreement), the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, the

1995 UN Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on

the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling

Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (1995 Fish Stocks Agreement), the IPOA−IUU and the

2005 FAO Model Scheme on Port State Measures.

The monitoring data of fishing activities can be consolidated by subdivisions based on biological and

ecological characteristics. However, it is obvious that environmental, economic, political and

commercial dimensions reinforce RECOFI‟s legitimacy. Fisheries governance, from knowledge of

fish resource potentials and dynamics, and rent levels and including the establishment of services and

institutions for the sustainable management of fisheries, highlights the regional dimension and the

need to act in close collaboration. This is the case for both coastal resources in confined areas and for

migratory resources in deep sea areas (tuna-like species, small pelagics).

Recommendations produced during the “third meeting of the RECOFI WGFM”, (Doha, Qatar, 20-22

October 2009), and the conclusions of the “Review of fisheries laws of certain Members of the

Regional Commission for Fisheries”, (FAO, FIEL/C1049, Rome 2009), have confirmed the well-

oriented strategy of the RECOFI to develop and to strengthen knowledge, policy and co operation to

address the regional dimension of fisheries management issues.

18

Sessions IV and V reports as well as all the technical studies undertaken between sessions beginning

with the first technical studies, show clearly the awareness of the regional dimension as regards

fisheries management within RECOFI. The most recent meetings, technical workshops and initiatives

supported by RECOFI which aim to develop a partnership between some of the Member countries

(tripartite meetings for example) have contributed to increasing this awareness. This should be the

basis for strengthening national and international motivation to provide RECOFI with the financial

and technical resources and capacity to address the issues that have been identified.

Given efforts to identify needs and to programme actions (i.e. Terms of reference for the WGFM)

there remains a lack of an ongoing presence of national technical experts with the appropriate

operational resources to execute these ToRs. This might require the constitution of a core team

responsible for monitoring the operationalisation of the ToRs alongside the Secretariat and outside

FAO (closer to national structures).

A first stage could be the “National focal points” option but according to their ToRs (Appendix 1,

FAO, RNE/RIEL/R915) and the reality of the situation, these could never actually fulfil the regular

two-way relay function between the RECOFI Secretariat and the Member countries whilst also

providing, when required, expert assistance on the particular theme debated in technical workshops.

Over and above the need to pool national knowledge and to develop a regional network of experts, no

current RECOFI work programme can lead to a protocol and common criteria for the identification

and prioritization of regional issues. Of course, these criteria and the protocols to implement common

actions should be in line with the Commission‟s modus operandi. On what basis is an issue identified

in view to be dealt with within RECOFI, what operational procedures are to be adopted?… Such

issues remain to be jointly discussed and clarified. How, for example, to share scientific knowledge,

how to pool MCS resources, how to use legally recognised common bases for monitoring activities,

how to share pilot studies and so on.

For these reasons, RECOFI has to become increasingly the leading mechanism for promoting regional

cooperation in fisheries management in this part of the world. Other organizations at the national and

international levels are also focusing on issues relating to fisheries and their long-term sustainability,

the ecosystem, the economic development, the environment and climate change. Broadening

RECOFI‟s cooperation and forming partnerships with these regional organizations is highly desirable

and should be encouraged.

Recommendations

RECOFI should endeavour to integrate measures to control IUU fishing with its other basic missions

such as successful resource conservation, efficient catches and effort monitoring, effective fishing

capacity management, sound scientific research, reliable fisheries data collection, compilation and

dissemination. The achievement of these objectives necessarily requires the availability of adequate

financial and human resources.

There is a need for flexibility in the experts invited to technical workshops according to the skills

required. Topics such as access rights, fishing capacity, IUU or other subjects require technical skills

such that a system with a single national focal point is not always appropriate. Flexibility is important

and this means more operational resources in order to diversify regional expert panels alongside

international experts.

Given the legitimacy of the regional fisheries dimension in the RECOFI zone, work is needed to

define criteria and set protocols to identify common issues and prioritize actions. This could be done

within the framework of a Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee open to public institutions

and to resource persons with an advisory role as well as to actors from the industry. This work should

be followed by the preparation of RECOFI programmes and projects (validated by the Commission

during the sessions) and presented to partners (donor Member countries or external donor agencies...).

19

Therefore, RECOFI should set up a process for the programming and the operationalisation of

cooperation in defined areas (research, surveillance, legislation, international cooperation, fiscal

arrangements, economics and trade...) in order to be able to act in accordance with international

conventions or agreements but also to promote good regional fisheries governance. To that effect,

other Commissions such as “SRFC or RFCO” have undertaken preliminary groundwork on these

criteria and established technical cooperation protocols, prior to identifying projects or during their

execution (i.e. SFRC for IUU project).

RECOFI should constantly emphasise the regional dimension of issues related to fisheries whilst

offering practical and functional solutions to address them. This requires effective communication and

raised awareness levels based on sustained and open exchange and cooperation

4.4 Regional dimensions of the aquaculture sector

Activities, decisions and experiences

The development of aquaculture in the RECOFI area varies form one member country to another in

terms of commercial production and research. Therefore, the Commission at its Second session held in

Muscat in 2003 approved the establishment of a WGA so as to play a vital role in increasing the

cooperation between members in the field of aquaculture. The WGA provides opportunities for

aquaculture officers from RECOFI members to meet regularly and discuss joint issues and obstacles

facing the development of aquaculture in the area and sharing information and experiences.

The regional dimension of aquaculture depends, of course, on sharing lessons learnt and knowledge. It

is also subject to similarities in the technical-economic production modes and in a regional context of

demand for animal protein. It also depends in some areas on bio-ecological interests due to risk

prevention in confined common zones (introduction of new species, development of intensive

techniques ...).

The WGA activities and the successful outcome of the RAIS project (cf. Paragraph 4.2) confirms this

particular feature of aquaculture which depends more on exchange of information and on networking

than on common commitments to resolve truly specific issues.

Assessment

There is a need to introduce and harmonize legislation dealing with aquatic animal health certification

and quarantine measures to facilitate regional trade in living aquatic animals, while minimising the

risk of spreading diseases. At the regional level and for cooperation between member countries, the

quality and safety of aquaculture products is manifested as harmonized and appropriated monitoring

procedures and introduction of measures to sanction infringement of relevant laws and regulations.

At present, aquaculture represents less than 15 percent of the overall fish production in the sub-region

but in many countries there are good opportunities for marine aquaculture and, accordingly,

governments have placed priority on the development of this sector. So the strategies for national

development plan have to be developed in a regionally controlled system to minimize risk. The

Governments of the participating countries fully recognize the urgent need to strengthen their

aquaculture legal framework to ensure that the sector develops in a sustainable manner.

In order to achieve this, RECOFI aims, through the WGA achievements and scheduled activities, to

constitute a platform for exchange and contact between the Member countries. RECOFI also serves as

a platform to update and transfer knowledge and/or to highlight successes in one or other of the

countries or in other parts of the world. These activities are already part of existing global networks

dealing with common aquaculture issues.

20

The regional dimensions concerning standard harmonisation, legislation and other technical,

environmental, fiscal or economic and health conventions concerning aquaculture, are not in

themselves strategic elements specific to RECOFI cooperation. This does not mean that this

cooperation cannot contribute usefully to the dissemination of past experience, including the issue of

prevention and supervision for the sustainable development of the aquaculture sector.

For aquaculture, a regional approach is opportune since it will lead to the harmonization of laws and

regulations and thus facilitate regional trade of aquatic animals and aquaculture products. In addition,

not all countries have similar access to the specialised advice that is required to update national legal

frameworks.

It was stressed that in some instances the sustainable development of the sector is hindered by a lack

of policy and planning to provide a reference point for management and development of the sector and

by institutional constraints due to a lack of technical capacity and/or weak institutional arrangements.

The legislative arrangements for the management and development of aquaculture are generally

uncertain and inappropriate. In particular, there is a need to streamline authorization processes, address

environmental impacts of aquaculture, introduce and harmonize legislation on aquatic animal health

certification, quarantine measures and the quality and safety of aquaculture products. Finally,

monitoring and enforcement provisions can be improved. The WGA activities are compatible with the

capacity for the emergence of a regional aquaculture and its potential for development. The numerous

themes addressed and discussed in technical workshops are relevant as regards dissemination of

knowledge and exchange of experience. The platform function is all the more efficient in that it is

structured around progress made during the RAIS technical workshop. This workshop, supported by

specific funds, provided the conditions for an ongoing networked facilitation to support the emergence

of national focal points on the subject. However, besides this success, the delays in commitment from

Member countries on the other key subject identified by the Commission towards the harmonisation of

aquaculture policy and legislation shows the weaknesses in cooperation and in RECOFI where

autonomisation conditions are very limited. The absence of commitment from private actors in the

aquaculture component may also explain why there is a problem in moving towards greater member

country involvement.

Recommendations

Member countries, under the aegis of countries with a major interest in aquaculture development,

should use RECOFI as a platform to exchange lessons learnt from past experience, knowledge and

operational capacity in order to plan and drive the development of investments in the aquaculture

sector. Aquaculture should be considered as a sector having a common strategic interest (markets,

food requirements, growth contribution) even though the regional dimension of projects does not

necessarily imply a common territorial dimension. The interest of cooperation in this sector should be

promoted through projects and a strategy minimising ecological, financial and commercial risks.

It is also by rapidly opening a dialogue with commissions that have investment resources and with

private economic operators (national and international) that RECOFI actions can be pursued and

strengthened in the sustainably-established aquaculture sector and that RAIS can be developed as a

network, information system and a platform for dissemination and exchange of knowledge. The

regional dimension should also involve economic, commercial and development aspects.

For aquaculture, a regional approach is opportune since it will lead to harmonization of laws and

regulations and thus facilitate regional trade of aquatic animals and aquaculture products. In addition,

not all the countries have similar access to specialised advice that is required to update national legal

frameworks.

It was stressed that in some instances the sustainable development of the sector is hindered by a lack

of policy and planning to provide a reference point for management and development of the sector and

by institutional constraints due to a lack of technical capacity and/or weak institutional arrangements.

The legislative arrangements for the management and development of aquaculture are generally

uncertain and inappropriate. In particular, there is a need to streamline authorization processes, address

21

environmental impacts of aquaculture, introduce and harmonize legislation on aquatic animal health

certification, quarantine measures and the quality and safety of aquaculture products. Finally,

monitoring and enforcement provisions can be improved.

4.5 Decision making, transparency, participation and method to define the

Commission Strategy, enforce the strategy, and assess the results

Assessment

The RECOFI agreement offers an adequate level of transparency and openness, providing for

participation of observers, such as FAO/UN Members and Associated Members, intergovernmental

organizations and NGOs.

The RECOFI agreement gives the opportunity to create subsidiary bodies as necessary and referring

to free choice of the state members. This possibility represents a strong flexibility in term of needs

and strategy to address main issues for fisheries or aquaculture.

In the current state of the Commission structures and bodies, the functioning and internal decision-

making mode of the Commission appears to work and has yet to meet any significant difficulty.

Nevertheless, it is clear that several challenges remain if the Commission is to evolve in its

composition and in its functioning, in particular towards greater appropriation by Member countries

and a better balance between FAO and RECOFI resource persons.

The process for the adoption of proposals seems to be satisfactory. Such proposals may originate from

Member countries, and they follow a clear and transparent protocol as described in RECOFI texts.

Proposals for consideration by the Commission may also come from subsidiary bodies. The process is

the same. Working Groups‟ proposals are compiled and analyzed by the Secretary for submission to

the Commission for consideration. The Commission takes decisions and makes recommendations as

appropriate by consensus or by voting.

The strategy is discussed, adopted and implemented within the framework of RECOFI sessions and

working groups according to the principles of the RECOFI Agreement. The programming of actions

depends on annual operational budgets and no action can be started without adequate finance. On that

point, it may be noted that there is a disequilibrium between the ToRs of the subsidiary bodies (WGA

and WGFM) and those of the focal points (part of its operational structure) and its self-financing

capacity. Currently, the implementation of actions is highly dependent on FAO availability.

The RAIS success story on the Kuwait extra budgetary contribution (USD 30 000) has to be

considered as a possible solution to develop RECOFI capacity to address ToRs of WGs in the near

future. On the other hand several difficulties persist in the implementation of shared financing. The

execution of action plans suffers from the weakness of the resources in particular to guarantee a good

participation and a strong implication of member countries in activities and meetings. Without a quick

solution, the risks exist that might halt the progress and thus the utility of the Commission.

Recommendations

From a legal point of view the RECOFI agreement is in compliance with the RECOFI missions,

objectives and stakes. Nevertheless it would be advisable to facilitate by means of operational

measures and by evolutions of structure, a stronger implication of member countries seen by the

empowerment of RECOFI; national contributions increased and the commitment diversified by

member countries according to operating modes as those experimented by RAIS project.

The non–political nature of FAO regional fishery bodies has to be instrumental in providing a platform

for dialogue and cooperation among their Members. RECOFI shall also make contacts with

international organizations in this regard to establish a dialogue as appropriate.

22

There is a need to rethink the location and the funding of the Commission headquarters in one of the

Member countries for reasons of proximity and physical appropriation by the Member countries.

There is a need to rebalance the implication of FAO and the Member countries through the nomination

and the financial support of staff from Member countries. Regional staff could have ongoing functions

or rotate within or at the head of the Secretariat and at the head of the WGs.

From a technical viewpoint, action plans, ToRs and the national resources generated should benefit

from advice which is independent from the Secretariat and the session participants. Such advice

should be more open and more structured and involve, if possible, public economic actors (Ministry of

Finance, International Cooperation, budget, environment ...), and extend to the private sectors within

the framework of consultative functions (Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee). This aims

to bring capacity into line with available resources and to concentrate efforts on priorities established

by the Member countries that would then be in a stronger position to drive RECOFI's programming.

This involves the creation of a Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee more diversified in its

composition than FAO structures and the public institutions in charge of the fisheries sector.

The RECOFI Agreement needs to be amended in order to incorporate modern fisheries management

principles and new international conventions (Flag State duties, Port State measures, precautionary

principle, ecosystem approach...)

4.6 Quality and provision of scientific advice and economic and social analysis

Assessment

To date, the Commission has not issued recommendations to Member countries. This is due in part to

its work plan since its creation which focuses on strengthening knowledge and exchanging data

before embarking on the preparation of technical, economic, legal or environmental

recommendations. This work on data has started and is still limited to fisheries data related to catches,

fleet and the technical organization of activities (metiers, gear used …). There is nothing substantial

to date with regards to economic monitoring, data by fishery, work on management units although the

foundations are beginning to be laid for some fisheries and the ToRs of the WGFM include a more

economic approach to fisheries management.

The data available for RECOFI stock assessment limits the scientific advice that can be provided. The

high level of artisanal catch makes the establishment of an accurate and comprehensive database on

catch (target species and non target species), effort and size statistics very difficult. The establishment

of a complete and comprehensive data set is also hampered by lack of cooperation. To improve the

quality of dialogue and capacity to build cooperation between national institution is a challenge for

the RECOFI future.

The current level of cooperation and appropriation of the Commission by the Member countries, as

well as the financial and technical capacity available, means that it will be several years before any

recommendations can be produced. In the case of recommendations for management, except for

general recommendations in the application of new concepts (precautionary approach, ecosystem

approach …) or the adoption of international conventions specific to fisheries and aquaculture (FAO

action plans for example), RECOFI, through its activities and working bodies, has not yet established

an adequate plan of action leading to common scientific results which would support

recommendations at a regional scale.

Cooperation efforts between scientific institutions should be strengthened through improved co-

programming and this requires a certain amount of work on cooperation procedures and principles

which strongly depends on greater involvement from national stakeholders. With stronger

commitment from national public institutions and adequate resources, greater scope for support and

23

facilitation of RECOFI activities (human and financial resources) and especially through joint

scientific programming based on good communication between Member countries, RECOFI could

aim to provide scientific and economic advice to Member countries.

Recommendations

There is a need to strengthen the Commission through the creation of a Scientific, Technical and

Economic Committee that would have a consultative role and would participate in developing

strategies. Such a committee should help to define priority actions and to identify new

operationalisation modalities for the Commission action plans and working groups. Such a

Committee could become a communication vector between the Commission and other international

(GCC for example or others) and national (Ministry of Finance, of budget, of cooperation, of

environment …) institutions as it would be able to call on resource persons from the scientific,

technical and economic fields to promote RECOFI's activities and contribute to improving capacity

and resources. Such a Committee could gradually study the issue of coordination between research

and statistics in order to reach conventional scientific recommendations.

In order to progress in the process of exchanging scientific capacity, a regional initiative, coordinated

by RECOFI, could be organized such as a scientific, technical and economic conference which would

clarify national capacity, create synergy between researchers, economists and technicians and launch

actions towards co-programming within RECOFI. Such an initiative could also contribute to the

visibility of RECOFI both for its achievements and its mandate and be used as a platform for

potential donors wishing to submit common projects or actions.

RECOFI should consider developing criteria and technical protocols to improve cooperation between

national institutions with a view to their participation in the RECOFI activity plan (research,

monitoring, control and surveillance). RECOFI should also consider developing a framework to take

action in the face of uncertainty and weakness in scientific advice. This question could be addressed

during the proposed scientific economic and technical conference.

RECOFI should take into account economic analysis (rent assessment) and fisheries management

plans (target species and high value species) as modern principles for fisheries management including

ecosystem based approach, biodiversity protection... to motivate the important decision makers in

each country. RECOFI should also develop capacity to assess the state of governance in each national

sector and capacity for managing fisheries and developing aquaculture sector.

RECOFI should address management questions at the regional level, not simply in the quest for

harmonised technical measures but also to resolve at the appropriate geographical scale certain

problems that face the sector (e.g. questions of fishing capacity or trade). This is because it is at this

scale and with a strict cooperation framework between the countries that acceptable and sustainable

solutions can be found.

4.7 Decision making process to adopt Commissions recommendations and measures

Assessment

The RECOFI agreement define precisely the decision making process to adopt Commissions

recommendations and measures.

Recommendations

Given the fact that RECOFI does not yet produce recommendations based on recognised scientific

work as regards fisheries management issues at a regional scale, efforts should target the

dissemination of exchanges and of reports produced on issues addressed and work projects. So, there

24

is no need to modify the process except by developing more communication activities or papers and

through a dissemination plan for the results and recommendations.

4.8 Capacity-Building, Training and Technical Assistance

Assessment

RECOFI has served as a platform for the transfer of knowledge and for strengthening the capacity of

public operators from the fisheries sector through the many issues discussed concerning fisheries and

aquaculture statistics and fisheries management as well as exchanges concerned with improving the

knowledge of national contexts and with general issues such as international conventions and FAO

initiatives (responsible fisheries, Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, IUU fishing, legislative

harmonisation, technical measures, fisheries statistics, cage farming techniques, risks related to the

introduction of new species, algae development ...). The numerous workshops and sessions since

2006 have shown that RECOFI is highly committed to training and exchanges of knowledge and

experience. The response given to the request for a tripartite meeting to accelerate the cooperation

process between the Gulf countries also testifies to this. (Tehran, Iran IR, July 2009).

RECOFI discharges its function of exchange platform and contributes to support and build the

capacity of Member countries. The diversity of the themes addressed both in fisheries and in

aquaculture and the national data-based approach (review of contexts in relation to key issues) also

strengthens the bases for cooperation. This approach is coherent given the resources at RECOFI

disposal which prevent a more significant participation of public and private national actors.

Therefore, the method is adequate but it suffers from lack of resources. The general issues addressed

would have benefited from discussions in more diversified workshops involving a larger panel of

public actors (sectoral administration, research, financial administration, MCS services, local services

and central administrations) and, if possible, private operators.

The involvement of resource persons designated by the Member countries under the functions of

specialised or national focal points also shows that the aim of RECOFI to contribute to strengthening

national capacity. The systematic review of national contexts, discussions during WGs or during

sessions followed by initiative proposals is a useful approach in order to disseminate lessons from

past experience and increase the Commission contribution to improving national technical capacities

through training human capacity. But these focal points, in order to maximise their contribution to

capacity building, should be supported by an ongoing and technical structure in RECOFI (Secretariat,

established and represented subsidiary bodies (WGs) or other long-term bodies

The focal points should also have the necessary resources to serve as national relay in order to

facilitate, disseminate and contribute through their actions to capacity building and maintain a

technical dialogue with the national authorities in charge of the sector to inform RECOFI of the

Member countries‟ demands, needs and priorities.

Given the context and the activities undertaken by RECOFI until now, and although structures and

initiatives require further work, it is clear that what is lacking are resources and financial and human

capacities to really maximise the initiatives already under way. Strengthening RECOFI internal

capacity would improve the results of these initiatives, help identify the needs and expectations of

Member countries, and contribute to support national requirements.

Currently and under the impetus of FAO, Member countries favour cooperation within the framework

of mutual capacity building even though technical difficulties remain in implementing this

cooperation. A wider partnership and extra-budgetary funds should strengthen RECOFI's efforts and

build its capacity in this field.

25

Recommendations

Seeking extra-budgetary funds will increase the output from, and impact of, capacity building

initiatives. On the basis of these extra resources, widen the panel of stakeholders who could benefit

from sessions, workshops and training sessions on the central themes of fisheries management and

aquaculture development.

Strengthening the human and financial capacity of the Secretariat will support the focal points in the

dissemination and the facilitation of national actor networks concerned with fisheries and aquaculture

problems. These actors could then contribute to work undertaken by RECOFI and promote RECOFI

capacity building resources.

Giving focal points the resources and an action plan will assist in the dissemination of RECOFI

achievements as well as in the mobilisation of the technical human capacity required to execute the

ToRs. Additionally, by giving focal points resources, through financial and technical support of the

Secretariat, it will encourage and engineer the demand from Member countries consistent with

RECOFI missions. Continuing with the comparative national thematic review work and prompting

the more advanced countries will help to build capacity, to develop partnerships within RECOFI in

order to disseminate their achievements and their technical skills.

It is also recommended that RECOFI prioritize the needs of the Member countries in a more

operational way in order to prepare a plan to build national capacity that could, through dealing with

some of the issues, provide support to the projects run by RECOFI; for example as regards the issue

of ecosystemic indicators and stock assessment, the creation of a fisheries observatory, the

development of an artisanal and industrial fishery registry, the fight against IUU fishing, the

monitoring of markets in the area, the development of a management plan for a shared fishery

(pelagics) or one of common economic interest (prawns)…

4.9 Communication and information

RECOFI activities and experiences

RECOFI activities, through WG technical workshops, sessions, ad hoc meetings and other initiatives

(tripartite meeting), always give rise to reports published and available on RECOFI website, via FAO.

Publication activities are supported by FAO through internal services and by RECOFI. The

publications are mostly standardised following an FAO publication format, except for RAIS

document.

Each session publishes the notes relating to the minutes of meetings, technical workshops, proposals,

recommendations and RECOFI budget situation. All these FAO standard publication materials and

the RECOFI website can be used as a basis for information with other institutions and partners. FAO

(Rome) has just updated this site.

In 2003, during the second session, it was asked how the RECOFI Secretariat can play a part in the

Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) fisheries activities, particularly demersal surveys. The Secretariat

replied that ad hoc meetings were planned with both the GCC and the Regional Organization for the

Protection of Marine Environment (ROPME).

The Secretariat advised that some Red Sea countries had requested their own regional fisheries

commission. It was suggested that cooperative projects, (including demersal surveys) with other

countries, rather than full membership of RECOFI by other countries may be a way of establishing

initial contacts in areas of common interest.

During the Session III, the delegate of United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) noted the

overlap of the issues addressed by RECOFI with those of other Regional/International Organizations

26

(UNEP, Regional Organization for the Protection of the Marine Environment [ROPME], Regional

Organization for Conservation of the Environment of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden [PERSGA]) and

recommended the coordination of efforts in this regard, including the development of a “Regional

Action Programme”, or enhancing/utilizing existing ones, on the protection of marine

environment/ecosystems and the sustainable management of marine resources.

During Session V, it was suggested that the two RECOFI Working Groups should consider planning a

joint activity covering this issue in close cooperation with other regional organizations, such as the

Regional Organization for the Protection of the Marine Environment (ROPME). Members also

emphasized the significance of cooperating with other organizations concerned with fisheries

management such as the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC). Members encouraged the

Secretariat to seek cooperation and partnership with other organizations in the region, mainly the

standing committee for fisheries of the GCC that were involved with fisheries and fisheries-related

issues.

With regards to the GCC and other regional organizations likely to contribute to exchanges and work,

RECOFI has taken the initiative to invite these partners to attend sessions but as to now, no specific

action outside the sessions has been undertaken to strengthen exchanges and cooperation. Due to the

limitation of resources and time, RECOFI Secretariat staff attend very few of the meetings held by

other RFB.

Assessment

Efforts are still required as regards cooperation with other organizations likely to contribute to or act

upon common issues.

Publications available via FAO standard documents are of satisfactory editorial and technical quality.

However, the contributions from experts (national) working within the framework of these workshops

are not published in the technical documents of these meetings. External contributions (i.e.

international consultant) are usually published and available from the website; all national

contributions presented at the Tehran Workshop in 2009 will be published. The listing of RECOFI

internal literature is well managed and for the most part easily accessible on the internet (RECOFI

website).

As a first approach to meet the above request the Secretariat invited INFOSAMAK to attend the 4th

Session of RECOFI and provided member countries with information material and guidelines relating

to INFOSAMAK‟s role and functions in the region. The Commission expressed its appreciation for

the valuable contribution of INFOSAMAK and noted the increasing importance of communications

and information networks in the sector of fish marketing and trade. INFOSAMAK was invited and

participated in the 5th Session. Joint FAO RNE/INFOSAMAK initiatives also requested by the WGFM

will take place this year, i.e. Fish trade, IUU and catch documentation schemes. Through the

Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee, better relationships and co-programming with other

regional international organizations could be established and pursued.

Recommendations

RECOFI should prepare a communication and information plan to deal with relational aspects with

Member countries and with non-member countries in the same area and with all partners likely to

bring financial, technical and operational support to RECOFI workshops. This plan should clearly

define the mandates and the role of each of the Commission‟s bodies including the focal points

(specialised or national) and define their means of action.

This plan could contain a training section in order to consider all the resources, products and strategic

elements that could strengthen the Commission visibility and hence its capacity to promote initiatives

in the area. This Information Communication Training (ICT) plan could lead to a more autonomous

27

Commission and to the dissemination of achievements, which is more direct and in a more

appropriate format for public and private operators involved in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors.

5. RECOFI WEAKNESSES AND SOLUTIONS PROPOSED

Procedure

Weaknesses

The Rules and Procedures adopted in RECOFI and the Agreement entered into force in February

2001. Since then many external factors have changed. The statute is a little “antique”. Several

international instruments have been developed concerning the management of world fishery resources.

In addition, there has been an increase in attention paid to the effectiveness of fisheries management

(i.e. Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and High Seas, IPOA-IUU, IPOA-

Seabirds, IPOA-Sharks, IPOA-Capacity...). The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) for some

years addressed fisheries in specific resolutions on sustainable fisheries, including calling upon

regional fisheries arrangements and in particular regional fisheries management organizations

(RFMOs) to address specific topics in order to achieve sustainable fisheries within their areas of

competence. The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), held in Johannesburg, South

Africa, in 2002 undertook, inter alia, to bring fish stocks to levels that can produce the maximum

sustainable yield (MSY) within a defined time period, and also defined a Plan of Implementation for

that purpose. The UN Fish Stocks Agreement and the FAO Compliance Agreement entail legally-

binding obligations on parties, which are highly relevant to countries that are members of RFMOs or

regional fisheries arrangement, including RECOFI Members that have ratified or acceded to the UN

fish Stocks Agreement and/or the FAO Compliance Agreement. Another form of change in the

international fisheries landscape concerns the number of issues relating to the sustainability of world

fisheries. The most important issues or challenges include: overfishing, over capacity and

overcapitalization of the sector, high rates of discarding, emergence of environmental values in fishery

resource use, globalization in particular in trade and IUU, challenges in consumption patterns and

perceptions...

Proposed solutions

Adapt the Rules and Procedure to the current circumstances, with more ownership among the

members and more flexibility.

Actors

Weaknesses

Actor participation does not always lead to sufficiently prepared and written contributions. In the past

and continuing presently, RECOFI‟s weakness in facilitation capacity has prevented progress in

international work programmes within the Commission. Insufficient participation by scientists has

slowed work progress and made it dependent on external consultants (FAO and international experts).

Overly-limited delegation diversity prevents progress on some thematic work programmes and may

hinder the analysis of complex situations in relation to bioeconomic, ecosystemic and/or international

issues. Additionally, the monitoring of work programmes started by RECOFI is not very effective due

to inadequate financial resources and to the weakness of some national administrations

Proposed solutions

One solution would be to pursue facilitation efforts and national capacity building through thematic

working groups, another would be to support regular meetings between national expert groups.

RECOFI should also ensure participants‟ interest in working groups through international programmes

28

based on common resources and capacity strengthened by external participants and seek funding in

order to increase technical capacity, meetings and publications involving national actors. It is possible

to support this strategy by setting up a Scientific, Economic and Technical Committee that could

contribute to scheduling programming actions and workshops and that could maximize the

dissemination of achievements at international level via a communication, information and training

plan. Allow workgroup participants to draw from the participation of external experts and to

participate themselves in meetings outside RECOFI (FAO workshops, meetings with other thematic

groups from other regions …). Try, through an initiative aimed at the general public, to broaden actor

participation to private operators involved in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors.

Legal matters (Mandate)

Weaknesses

Lack of Member country involvement and contribution is one mandate weekness, along with an

unbalanced ownership between FAO and Member countries.

Proposed solutions

RECOFI needs to achieve the increased involvement of Member countries through the level of

contribution and pro-active and more user-friendly working processes.

Strategy

Weaknesses

Concerns exist that the RECOFI strategies are focused on the FAO instruments and the national level

except for the Gulf recent initiative. Criteria to define regional and common strategies are not in place

for effective operation. Priorities are not sufficiently discussed within the Commission. The

programming methodology is weakened by the lack of a consultative Committee (scientific, economic

and technical). The identification of priorities and needs does not emerge from a process with

sufficient implication of States and the public authorities (economy, environment, and market) and the

actors of the fishery and aquaculture sector.

Proposed solutions

RECOFI needs to more clearly define its strategy and priorities through a wider panel of national

actors from the productive sectors and the administrations of the fishing and aquaculture sectors, and

from the economic and environmental departments. Common criteria must be developed to define

strategies and select priorities. A Consultative council (scientific, economic and technical) should be

instituted to validate the definition of RECOFI strategies and priorities.

Financial and time inputs

Weaknesses

The RECOFI agreement is poor on co-financing. The FAO contribution depends on the budget of the

FAO, which restricts the strategy for future actions and visibility. The future risks of inadequate

financial resources are great with consequences in term of activities and planning. The Procedure does

not facilitate external funding. RECOFI and FAO financial resources are insufficient for the RECOFI

secretariat as such. Insufficient external funding resources are available to support international

initiatives in term of working groups, conferences, meetings. Funding limits the time contribution

from FAO and Member countries.

29

Proposed solutions

The RECOFI agreement must be revised concerning Member countries economic contributions in

order to ensure the capacity to implement and develop RECOFI activities within a sustainable

strategy. The Secretariat needs to be co-funded by the Member countries. RECOFI should facilitate

the collection of funds. Members‟ control and facilitation for funding has to be developed along with

more external financing possibilities (i.e. GCC or other national and international donors).

Structure

Weaknesses

The structure is somewhat limited by the absence of a consultative council. The Secretariat is limited

in time and financial resources by the FAO and Member countries‟ strategy. National and thematic

focal points is not the best solution to develop countries‟ involvement because being members of

national administrations, they do not have sufficient autonomy to contribute adequately to RECOFI

initiatives.

Proposed solutions

Creating a consultative council and reform the Secretariat structure could strengthen human capacity

and countries‟ involvement by integrating national actors within the Secretariat and increasing

financial and technical capacities. Focal points provide a link between the national administrations and

the sectors. But without increased capacity to communicate and develop autonomy, they cannot play a

real role for national activities.

Culture

Weaknesses

RECOFI has an essentially FAO culture but it should be more a Member country culture. The culture

is not sufficiently regional or output driven. The particularities of the sectors in the regional area are

not sufficiently included in the strategy for sustainable and autonomous action.

Proposed solutions

The current open culture needs to be and can be combined with a more regional and outcome oriented

attitude.

People

Weaknesses

The motivation and profiles of correspondents and delegations in some countries are too weak to allow

for the proper management of RECOFI affairs.

Proposed solutions

Improve people‟s motivation by more communication, information and training. Move towards a more

pro-active style to develop a regional strategy to respond to the challenges facing the fishing and

aquaculture sectors. Develop more opportunities for national scientific and technical contributions in

meetings, conferences and working groups with more flexibility in panel selection.

30

Style of RECOFI management

Weaknesses

The style is at present too dominated by FAO supervision of the Secretariat and the working groups.

There is insufficient country involvement in the agenda and decision-making processes under the

control of a consultative council.

Proposed solutions

Develop the more pro-active involvement of countries in Secretariat activities and move working

group agendas towards more open discussion with larger panels of actors.

6. CHALLENGES AND STRATEGY, SCENARIO FOR THE FUTURE

6.1 Challenges and strategy

In order to strengthen its strategy towards an improved contribution to the development and the

sustainability of the fisheries and aquaculture sectors, RECOFI should:

Integrate the new international instruments that have emerged since its creation and in

particular the International Plans of Action and recommendations for precautionary and

ecosystem approaches.

Increase the level of member country contributions to allow for greater financial autonomy

and hence greater programme flexibility for the Commission.

Improve its operating structure though the creation of a consultative body (Council or

Committee) of a scientific, economic and technical nature.

Seek ways and means to open the Secretariat to resource persons from the Member countries

and consider whether the Secretariat should be located closer to the RECOFI Member

countries.

Develop a strategy to strengthen RECOFI‟s internal capacity to take into account the new

fisheries and aquaculture challenges concerning both the economic and the environmental

aspects of the activities. There is also the need to integrate globalization issues facing the

sectors.

Bring to the fore a culture and strategy for the prioritisation of regional actions to reinforce

national actions and strategies. In order to achieve this, develop a range of indicators and a

method to define priorities involving the consultative body in the process.

Build capacity to prepare projects and programmes aimed at strengthening financial and

technical resources and capacity to address some of the constraints to the sustainable

development of fisheries and aquaculture.

Develop a proactive strategy for training, communication and information which would make

it possible to increase the Commission capacity whilst ensuring a progressive transfer of FAO

responsibilities towards Member countries.

Contribute to better information on fisheries and aquaculture through the publication of

reliable and standardized statistics and through the creation and the facilitation of regular

thematic forums.

Constitute an expert roster that could address countries‟ emergencies in terms of resource

risks, exploitation areas or products.

Develop a network of external contributors to support thematic or promotional actions for the

sustainable development of fisheries and aquaculture (via a regular forum open to partners

every other year based on a range of actions in support of national actions).

Prepare project concept notes to support the strategic plan covering immediately the

following priority themes:

Diagnosis of natural potential and economic value of fish resource rents;

31

Identification of regional fisheries management units;

Building technical capacity to prepare and implement management plans for common, shared

or common interest fisheries (pelagics, shrimps...);

Develop a management plan for fishing capacity within the RECOFI region;

Harmonization of fisheries and aquaculture legislation and conventions on minimum access

conditions and international access agreements;

Plan for training and scientific exchange in order to build capacity for stock monitoring and

exploitation dynamics.

Development of a fisheries and aquaculture observatory to promote private investment and

increase public investment efficiency;

This strategic strengthening should address the following challenges first:

Better scientific and technical knowledge to improve stock assessment and provide a better

evaluation of active fleets in the region.

Consolidated diagnoses of fishing potentials through the evaluation of the economic stakes

related to these stocks (rent) in order to prepare strategies and recommendations for the

regional coherence of fisheries and aquaculture public policies.

Sustained and organized exchanges between national administrations in a strong and active

commission in order to harmonies legislations concerning common or shared stocks.

Monitoring control and surveillance resources optimized and operational at the level of

shared territories and stocks.

Regulated and secured trade flows in order to supply markets through activities that are

controlled (quality) and monitored (creation of economic value).

Strengthened national and regional governance capacity through the application of the

subsidiarity principle and the active contribution to regional issues such as: The control of

access to the resources (harmonization of minimum access conditions), mobility of fishing

capacity (development of a Regional Capacity Plan), professional status of the sector actors

(professionalization and control of access to the profession), monitoring, control and

surveillance of product flows, quality control in the context of new international trading

standards for human consumption products.

Stakeholder participation in monitoring, control and surveillance processes is rationalized and

formalized in order to improve sectoral governance.

Visibility of the Commission‟s role and issues which encourages its support and the

participation of partners to support these action plans and initiatives.

A flexibility that can counteract the risks associated with inter-sectoral conflict management

(oil/fishing, tourism/fishing, environment/fishing, navigation/fishing ...).

6.2 Risk analysis

Several risks or limits are linked to the status and its implications according to Article XIV (Box 1).

32

Box 1: Certain concerns about an Article XIV body were raised as follows

The difficulty in explaining to the Government, and particularly to Finance Ministries,

that specific payments should be made to a FAO Article XIV body, whilst they are

already paying their normal membership contribution to FAO.

The body could be seen as part of FAO or a tool of FAO and not as a body of the

members themselves, which may dampen members‟ commitment to the body and create

hesitation among some donors to support it.

The body would be bound by certain administrative regulations and processes of FAO,

which could impact on (e.g. cause delays to) its operations and restrict independent

actions.

FAO would decide on the level of inputs to the secretariat, which may result in a part-

time/inadequate secretarial support.

A body under FAO could take a longer time to establish if the immediate biennial FAO

Conference was missed.

Part of the members‟ contributions could be used for FAO secretariat functions; and that

the secretariat and other staff should be contracted internationally under FAO procedures

and payment schemes, further reducing flexibility of staffing and likely increasing staff

costs.

It may be difficult to ensure visibility and raise the image of the body as its achievements

would be likely attributed to FAO.

FAO is an agency focused on rural development and food security so that research issues

may not have much priority from the body.

The FAO Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters, in considering the initiative,

reported to FAO Council that, while it was expected that FAO would be able to support the

Commission and facilitate the above-mentioned synergies, prospective Members expressed

their awareness of the FAO Immediate Programme of Action, (action 3.17) which implied

expectancy that bodies under Article XIV of the Constitution should achieve a greater degree

of self-funding.( Report of the 88th Session of the FAO Committee on Constitutional and

Legal Matters, 23-25 September 2009).

Source: Judith Swan “Review of the functioning of EIFAC and options for long-term improvement,

Fisheries and Aquaculture Department / FAO / 14 January 2010.

However other risks are more specifically related to the current RECOFI context. Among these

might be mentioned that without institutional development (updating, creation of a consultative

body), and without strengthening the process of identification of priority regional actions (more

involvement from Member countries in programming according to an agreed methodological

framework based on a shared vision) and finally without adjustment and strengthening of its

operating mode (from working groups to thematic work programmes supported by own secure

funds and expert panels other than focal points), RECOFI would run the risk of:

A decrease in financial resources (those depending on FAO and external funding then

internal funding)

Loss of human capacity through uncontrolled FAO staff rotation, of human capacity

within its Secretariat, working group leaders, demotivated delegation members.

Loss of Member countries‟ interest and motivation concerning the regional dimension.

Emergence of new competition from other regional organisations‟ initiatives.

Loss of skill qualities through not accumulating and exchanging achievements and

technical knowledge.

Loss of institutional capacity at sectoral issue level because recommendations and their

implementation meet with difficulties.

Increasing conflicts in the RECOFI sectoral space.

33

Stock depletion and fish resource rent dissipation

An increase in IUU fishing and increase in surveillance costs

Disorganization of markets and local economies

Health and food risks

Degradation of natural environments

Introduction of new species and related environmental risks

Private and public financial losses due to unprofitable investments.

6.4 Organization and financing: scenarios for the future

Status of the contributions to the RECOFI

In May 2007, the Commission adopted a budget for the 2007-08 biennium amounting to

USD 160 000. This did not include the estimate of the FAO Regular Programme contribution to

RECOFI11

(example of FAO contribution to RECOFI is given in Table 6).

As of the 31st of December 2008, the income from contributions for 2008–09

12 amounted to USD 29,

995 (equivalent to 75% of the expected annual total contribution).

As of the 31st of December 2009, the income from contributions for 2009-2010 amounted to USD

20, 000 (equivalent to 50% of the expected annual total contribution).

The status of contributions can be summarized as follows:

Three Members (Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia) deposited their instruments of acceptance and

have paid their contribution in full;

Five Members (Bahrain, Iran, Oman, Qatar, United Arab Emirates) deposited their

instruments of acceptance but have not yet fully paid their contribution.

During the fifth session, the Secretariat informed the Commission that the total balance of

accumulated pending contributions amounted to USD 70 187.83. This represented a 17 percent

increase in comparison to the previous biennium. The Commission took note of its budget from 2003

to 31 December 2008. The Commission also noted the financial delivery by main activity during the

period from 2007 to May 2009.The Commission was advised that as of the 31 December 2008 the

actual contribution from RECOFI Members to the annual 2008–09 budget amounted to USD 29 995

or 75 percent of the expected annual total contribution. Only four Members had paid their annual

contributions in full. Four other Members‟ contributions remained outstanding. In this regard the

Commission invited all Members to settle overdue payments in a timely manner.

As shown in Table 2, the balance of accumulated pending contributions against the 2007–08 and

2008–09 RECOFI fiscal years, as of the 31 of December 2009, amounted to USD 90 187.83. This

represents a 50 percent increase compared to the previous biennium (outstanding 31/12/2007).

11

The FAO sent, through diplomatic channels, the “Call for fund letter” on the 18 April 2008. A reminder,

followed by individual recalls, was sent by the Secretariat on the 23 of July 2008 to concerned Parties.

12 RECOFI fiscal year is from the 1

st of May to the 30

th of April.

34

Table2: Status of contributions on 31 December 2008

Members Outstanding

31/12/07

Due for

2008-

2009*

Received up

to

31/12/08

Outstanding

31/12/2008

Due for

2009-

2010*

Received

up to

31/12/2009

Outstanding

31/12/2009

BAHRAIN 5,000.00 5,000.00 10,000 5,000.00 15,000

IRAQ 5,000.00 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 0.00

IRAN, Islamic Republic of 15,076.57 5,000.00 20,076.57 5,000.00 25,076.57

KUWAIT 0.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 0.00

OMAN, Sultanate of 15.00 5,000.00 4,995.00** 20.00 5,000.00 5 020.00

QATAR 25,035.22 5,000.00 5,000.00 25,035.22 5,000.00 30,035.22

SAUDI ARABIA,

Kingdom of

0.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 0.00

UNITED ARAB

EMIRATES

15,056.04 5,000.00 5,000.00 15,056.04 5,000.00 5,000.00 15,056.04

TOTALS

60,182.83

40,000.00

29, 995.00

70,187.83

40,000.00

20, 000.00

90,187.83

Source: Doc. RECOFI Fifth session, May 2009 and Trust Fund n° 119814 – MTF/REM/001/MUL (RECOFI)

* RECOFI fiscal year is from the 1st of May to the 30th of April.

** A minimal negative balance can be noted for Oman probably due to bank transfer charges

Table 3 provides an overview of the financial statement of the Commission‟s budget since 2003 and

as of December 31, 200813

, and the liquidation of total expenses as of December 31, 2008. Total

expenses (USD 260 958) include expenses settled up to the end of December 2008 (USD 168 283),

existing commitments (USD 60 357) made until the end of April 2009 and a provision of USD 32 318

earmarked as a forecast for the cost of the fifth RECOFI session (interpretation, in-session translation

of draft report, travel, printing and miscellaneous).

Table 3: Financial Status in US Dollars (2003- May 2009)

Income (contributions) 303,822

Total Expenses 260,958

Expenses (up to end December 2008) 168,283

Commitments (2009) 60,357

Forecast (2009 5th session) 32,318

Balance 42,864

Source : Doc. RECOFI Fifth session, May 2009

The financial delivery by main activity during the period from 2007 to May 2009 is provided in Table

4. Expenditures can be divided in three broad categories:

i) expenses related to the functioning of the Secretariat (51% of total expenses, 52% of which

are related to the Commission‟s plenary sessions in 2007 and 2009);

ii) activities in support of the Working Group Aquaculture (30%);

iii) activities in support of the Working Group Fisheries Management (19%).

The main expenditure chapters, based on the FAO/Oracle trust funds standard budget line allocations,

are summarized in Table 5.

Table 4: Financial delivery by activity during the intersessional period (US Dollars)

2007 2008 2009

(provisional) Total

Aquaculture Working Group 18 574 22 234 16 342 57 150

Fisheries Management Working Group 8 765 26 623 35 388

Secretariat 24 493 23 391 49 710 97 594

Total 43 067 54 390 92 675 190 132

Source : Doc. RECOFI Fifth session, May 2009

13

Funds deposited for the implementation of the Aquaculture Legal and Policy Framework Project are not

included.

35

Table 5: Expenditures met during the inter-sessional biennium (US Dollars) including 2009 commitments and forecast

up to May (inclusive)

Expenditures 2007-2009

Staff costs (General Services) 23,821

Consultancies 54,824

Travel 75,329

Contracts 3,713

General Operating Expenses 5,084

Charge backs (interpretation & reporting) 19,585

Other Miscellaneous 7,776

Total 190,132

Source : Doc. RECOFI Fifth session, May 2009

During the fifth session, the Secretariat provided a statement of the financial situation for extra-

budgetary resources provided by Members to support projects executed by the Secretariat. These

projects included, for example, a Kuwait-supported information system for the development of

regional aquaculture. With respect to the aquaculture legal and policy framework project, RECOFI

was informed that the Secretariat was unable to proceed further. This project was intended to be

funded by RECOFI Members on an equal-share contribution basis. Four Members had confirmed their

commitment to FAO to fund the project. However, contributions were deposited by only two

Members.

Table 6: FAO Staff Members time activity and costs 2008/2009 (US Dollars)

Name FAO Members Nbr/days Travel costs Total

David Doulman 72 13 351.00 59 935.00

Gaëlle Hermanus 44 13 761.00 26 081.00

Heba Fahmy / Mona 180 2 000.00 18 380.00

Judit Swan 21 4 459.00 12 628.00

Lucas Garibaldi 61 280.00 37 204.00

Piero Mannini 180 5 000.00 93 380.00

Alessandro Lovatelli 71 14 739.78 54 783.00

Florence Poulain 60 3 000.00 43 200.00

Pilar Arocena 1,5 420.00

Raschad Al-Kafaji 9 3 024.00 7 155.00

Sachiko Tsuji 21 9 215.00 22 802.00

Valerio Crespi 45 7 140.91 24 285.91

Yimin Ye 3 8 200.00 10 141.00

Total 768.5 84 170.69 410 394.91

Source : FAO Data March 2010

Following extensive discussions and taking account of its current financial situation, the Commission

agreed to support the activities in Table 7. Furthermore, it was agreed that the Secretariat should seek

to organize additional activities if arrears in contributions became available.

36

Table 7: Table of RECOFI activities to be undertaken in the 2009–2010 inter-sessional period.

Working

Group

Activity Date Location Duratio

n

Indicative

cost

(USD)

Status

Fish. Man. Workshop on stock status

reporting

Jul 2009 Iran 3–4 days 30 000 Approved

Fish. Man. Integration of catch and effort data

in the RECOFI area

2009/

2010

RECOFI

countries

TBD 30 000 Approved

Fish. Man. 3rd WGFM Meeting Oct 2009 Qatar 3 days Approved

Aquaculture Risk analysis (Training) TBD Oman 3–4 days 30 000 Approved

Aquaculture Environmental monitoring

(Training)

TBD TBD 10–14

days

20 000 Approved

Joint Red tides: Impacts on capture

fisheries and aquaculture and

counter measures (Technical

workshop)

2010 Kuwait 3–4 days 20 000 Approved

Joint Geographical Information System

(GIS) and spatial tools

applications for capture fishery

and aquaculture

2010 Qatar 3–4 days 30 000 Approved

Fish. Man.

(4)

Review of national fisheries

programmes

2009 RECOFI

countries

TBD 40 000 Postponed

Fish. Man.

(7)

Workshop on the utilization of

fishery dependent data

2010 TBD 3–4 days 30 000 Postponed

Fish. Man.

(8)

Workshop on RECOFI fisheries

economics

2010 TBD 3–4 days 30 000 Postponed

Fish. Man.

(9)

Training workshop on fishery

resources appraisal

2010/

2011

TBD 4 days 40 000 Postponed

Fish Man.

(10)

Pilot joint assessment of shared

stocks

2011 TBD 3–4 days 30 000 Postponed

Aquaculture

(4)

Development of a national

strategy on aquatic animal health

(Planning workshop)

TBD TBD 3–4 days 30 000 Postponed

Aquaculture

(6)

Aquaculture recirculation

technologies (Technical

workshop)

TBD TBD 2–3 days 20 000 Postponed

Aquaculture Regional Aquaculture Information

System (development and

consolidation)

TBD TBD 5 days 5 000 Ongoing

Note: Numbers in brackets refer to original ranking of activities.

Status of RECOFI extra-budgetary resources

At its Third session (Doha, Qatar, 9–11 May 2005) the Commission had requested the Secretariat

prepare and circulate periodical budget reviews and financial statements with the view of keeping

Member countries informed of the financial status of RECOFI and providing comprehensive

information and data to be used during future presentations of the Commission‟s Programme of Work

and Budget (PWB).

Specifically, the Member countries had requested that the Secretary prepare full and comprehensive

financial reports including statements from the previous biennium. This request was fulfilled for the

Third Session. A second request had asked the Secretary to distribute updated budget reports on a

quarterly basis. However, due to the absence of major inter-sessional activities and related

expenditures during 2006 a single financial statement was issued in February 2007 and incorporated

into the document presented.

The overall budget adopted by the Commission at its Fourth session included the funds made available

as extra budgetary resources (i.e. from voluntary contributions by some members). Utilization of these

funds is summarized below.

37

Kuwait support to the Development of the Regional Aquaculture Information System:

Following the kind offer made by Kuwait at the Third session of the Commission (Doha,

Qatar, May 2005) in support of the initiative, the amount of USD 30 000 was received in a

single instalment in 2007. These funds were used to cover the costs related to the design,

development and testing of RAIS, including on-the-job training of the RAIS Regional

Centre staff. The detailed description of RAIS activities is given in RECOFI/V/2009/Inf.5)

Aquaculture Legal and Policy Framework Project: The project proposal was developed by

the WGA, approved in principle by the Commission at the Third session (2005) and further

endorsed at the Fourth session (2007). It was expected that each RECOFI member would

contribute on an equal share basis, consisting of USD 22, 500 each. As of December 2008,

only Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates had deposited their contribution, which

amounts to 29% of the planned total funds required to implement the project. While

awaiting the fulfilment of contributions to the budget, the Secretariat did not proceed further

with the finalization of the administrative and operational framework of this activity.

Assessment

Several questions directly related to the financial commitment of Member countries and of

contributors need to be considered. As we saw in several recommendations, the resources required for

the satisfactory execution of RECOFI's workplans often seem insufficient and lead to the involvement

of a minimum number of actors (cf. Tab.7) or to important delays (i.e. Aquaculture Legal and Policy

Framework Project). It is therefore necessary to match expectations of the Commission, its workplans

and commitments and its autonomisation with the financial resources at its disposal.

Examining 2008 and 2009 (last biennium), the working costs related to RECOFI activities were USD

557 459.91, including the costs of FAO Staff members supporting the Commission. This is 5.6 times

more than the total national contributions from Member countries over the same period (USD 80 000).

The FAO contribution over the period represents indirectly 73.61% of financial commitments. The

autonomisation of the Commission would mean a contribution level of around USD 35,000 per annum

per country14

.

In the forecast budget of the activities to be undertaken between 2009 and 2010 (cf. RECOFI Fifth

session, RNE/FIEL/R915, p 11), the indicative costs were USD 385 000, not including the cost of a

workshop on “Fisheries Management” in Qatar and other operating costs for the Secretariat and the

financial support of external participants. And this outcome occurs assuming that current working

arrangements are continued, in particular with sessions and workshops that do not include non-

conventional RECOFI partners. It seems fair to say that in a strategy to broaden activities to other

themes and other actors, this evaluation is only a guide to the minimum budget and that this will

require a substantial upwards revision. It is important, therefore, to consider the ways and means to

improve the Commission‟s financial capacity in order to develop adequately its contribution to

achieving its objectives and its influence within the region for good governance and the development

of the sectors for which it is partly responsible. Its dynamism and future are at stake in this necessary

adaptation of its financial operating capacity. The commitment of partners is also certainly related to

its self-financing capacity. The hypothesis of a status quo in the contributions as they stand would

mean the end of the Commission as one of the active and recognised organizations working on

regional issues.

14

For comparison purposes, the level of annual contributions established within the framework of the SRFC is

of USD 50 129 for the poorest countries of the sub-region (Cape Verde, Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Sierra Leone)

and of USD 100 258 for the more important countries (Mauritania, Senegal, Guinea). However it is true that the

contributions also cover the financial cost of national experts invited to working groups. Moreover, the arrears

are more than one million USD.

38

Scenarios for the future

Seek ways and means to improve the Commission‟s financial capacity. In order to achieve this various

hypotheses are possible which include:

i) Maintain an equal payment (excluding any other criterion than the fact of being a

RECOFI Member country) with an upward readjustment of annual national

contributions,

ii) Maintain the principle of equal and compulsory minimum contribution supplemented

by extra-budgetary contributions decided by Member countries according to their

involvement in work programmes where they take on the leadership; this was

successfully the case on the RAIS supported by Kuwait. On the other hand, the equal

and imposed extra-budgetary co-funding of Member countries proved to be

inappropriate and did not lead to the work that was planned for aquaculture. This

process should therefore be abandoned.

iii) The ending of an equal payment for all via indexed contributions based on an

indicator calculation taking into account the level of wealth of the country, the shares

of fisheries and aquaculture in the economic growth or the contribution indices of the

sector to food requirements, to the trade balance, to employment or other physical

parameters related to marine or inland activities (coastal length, EEZ size, surface

available for aquaculture, etc.). This solution should then be studied with a view to

achieving a target total budget which would not lead to more resources but would

introduce a differential which would only work on the basis of a strong and secure

agreement written into the RECOFI Agreement. More than the process, it is this

commitment which would illustrate a political change in the RECOFI working

context.

Depending on the budgetary forecast and expectations from other recommendations, a budget of

around USD 450 000 to 500 000 per biennium (i.e. USD 30 000 to 35 000 / year / Member country)

would be a significant step towards the Commission‟s autonomy and would signal its long-term

commitment to regional work programmes which support good fisheries governance and aquaculture

development. This budget could constitute a working capital and would hence be a guarantee for

national or international donors (stakeholders in the area's marine and inland interests) given that

partners pay increasing attention to the self-financing capacity of Member countries, regional

organizations and to their own capacity regardless of their access to extra-budgetary funds.

The Commission, whilst maintaining the current modus operandi concerning the recovery of FAO and

Member country staff expenses could progressively prepare projects covering some thematic work

programmes that could be submitted to external donors or partners (GCC funding, Member country or

donor unilateral funding to support development, environmental protection, public investment

concerning research, monitoring, control, surveillance, etc) .

As the situation stands now, a wider panel of national actors could be involved with national financial

support, but in practice this makes the choice of resource persons somewhat haphazard and affects

their medium and long-term thematic commitment. The best option is always for the Commission to

meet the cost of inviting the resource persons required to develop activities and build its human

capacity.

A more operational and narrower cooperation with the GCC should be considered on the basis of an

agreement between the RECOFI Member countries of this organization and in parallel with other

possibilities.

39

From an organizational and transparency viewpoint, during several sessions, the Member countries

have expressed the need for the regular monitoring of RECOFI financial commitments through the

initiatives undertaken by the Secretariat and the working groups. In the current context of a strong and

significant financial relationship with FAO, and given the weakness of the Secretariat permanent staff,

it seems that this request has yet to meet with a satisfactory response.

40

Annex 1: Number of participants by country during RECOFI Meetings and sessions

Meeting Barhain Iran Iraq Kuwait Oman Qatar Saudi

Arabia

United

Arab

Emirates

FAO Others RECOFI

Sec.

Place

2nd Session 2003 3 2 3 7 2 2 2 3 4 2 Oman

3rd Session 2005 3 + (1) 2 1 2 3 5 3 + (1) 2 6 1 2 Qatar

4th Session 2007 2 + (1) 2 2 3 3 7 + (6) 2 7 2 Saudi Arabia

5th Session 2009 3 + (1) 2 1 2 6 2 3 7 10 3 UAE

2nd WGFM 2008 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 6 Egypte

3rd WGFM 2009 1 1 2 1 3 3 2 1 4 Qatar

1st WGS

2nd WGS

Works. IUU 2009 1 2 7 1 2 1 4 Oman

2nd WGA 2005 3 + (4) 1 3 1 1 1 1 + (1) 1 4 1 1 Oman

3rd WGA

4th WGA 2009 2 1 1 3 1 3 2 4 Oman

Works. Aquatic A

H

2008 1 2 2 6 2 4 1 Saudi Arabia

Works. Cage 2009 2 1 1 18 1 3 2 2 2 Oman

Total 22 + (7) 10 10 16 54 23 34 + (8) 22 50 15 9

() observers

41

Annex 2: A compendium of the recommendations by issues

Knowledge regarding the status of resources and fisheries, data collection and sharing

Create a Scientific, Economic and Technical Committee (SETC).

Organize a regional conference on common bio-economic potentials and on the ecosystem

indicators to be measured).

Work on the issue of management units for regional and strictly national stocks should be

undertaken from a RECOFI perspective.

Support to national technical capacity related to the harmonisation work already completed.

Wider set of ecosystem data and de facto be completed as soon as possible with economic data

specific to the fisheries sector.

Launch a regional technical work programme in order to structure information bases and

develop further, through common, standardised and comparable statistical protocols, the

cooperation between Member countries by integrating all the ecosystem parameters.

Knowledge regarding the status of Aquaculture

Pursue and consolidate RAIS

Promote a strategy for the development of aquaculture programmes according to environmental

standards, risk prevention and the strengthening of economic, commercial and food interests in

the area.

Regional dimensions of the fishing sectors

Integrate measures to control IUU fishing with its other basic missions.

Develop flexibility in the experts invited to technical workshops according to the skills

required.

Define criteria and set protocols to identify common issues and prioritize actions.

Set up a process for the programming and the operationalisation of cooperation in defined areas

(research, surveillance, legislation, international cooperation, fiscal arrangements, economics

and trade...)

Emphasise the regional dimension of issues related to fisheries whilst offering practical and

functional solutions to address them.

Regional dimensions of the aquaculture sector

Use RECOFI as a platform to exchange lessons learnt from past experience, knowledge and

operational capacity.

Open a dialogue with commissions that have investment resources and with private economic

operators

Develop a regional approach since it will lead to harmonization of laws and regulations and

thus facilitate regional trade of aquatic animals and aquaculture products.

Decision making, transparency, participation and method to define the Commission Strategy,

enforce the strategy, and assess the results

Facilitate by means of operational measures and by evolutions of structure, a stronger

implication of member countries seen by the empowerment of RECOFI.

Provide a platform for dialogue and cooperation among their Members.

42

Rethink the location and the funding of the Commission headquarters in one of the Member

countries for reasons of proximity and physical appropriation by the Member countries.

Rebalance the implication of FAO and the Member countries through the nomination and the

financial support of staff from Member countries.

Implement external and independent advice from the Secretariat and session participants for

action plans, ToRs and the national resources generated.

The RECOFI Agreement needs to be amended in order to incorporate modern fisheries

management principles and new international conventions (Flag State duties, Port State

measures, precautionary principle, ecosystem approach...)

Quality and provision of scientific advice and economic and social analysis

Strengthen the Commission through the creation of a Scientific, Technical and Economic

Committee.

Organize a scientific, technical and economic conference.

Develop criteria and technical protocols to improve cooperation between national institutions

with a view to their participation in the RECOFI activity plan (research, monitoring, control

and surveillance).

Develop a framework to take action in the face of uncertainty and weakness in scientific

advice.

Take into account economic analysis (rent assessment) and fisheries management plans (target

species and high value species) as modern principles for fisheries management including

ecosystem based approach, biodiversity protection...

Develop capacity to assess the state of governance in each national sector and capacity for

managing fisheries and developing aquaculture sector.

Address management questions at the regional level, not simply in the quest for harmonised

technical measures but also to resolve at the appropriate geographical scale certain problems

that face the sector (e.g. questions of fishing capacity or trade).

Decision making process to adopt Commissions recommendations and measures

Target the dissemination of exchanges and of reports produced on issues addressed and work

projects.

Capacity-Building, Training and Technical Assistance

Seek extra-budgetary funds to increase the output from, and impact of, capacity building

initiatives.

Strengthen the human and financial capacity of the Secretariat to support the focal points in

the dissemination and the facilitation of national actor networks concerned with fisheries and

aquaculture problems.

Give focal points the resources and an action plan to disseminate RECOFI achievements as

well as to mobilise the technical human capacity required to execute the ToRs.

Give focal points the resources, through financial and technical support of the Secretariat, to

encourage and engineer the demand from Member countries consistent with RECOFI

missions.

Continue with the comparative national thematic review work and prompt the more advanced

countries to build capacity, to develop partnerships within RECOFI in order to disseminate

their achievements and their technical skills.

43

Prioritize the needs of the Member countries in a more operational way in order to prepare a

plan to build national capacity that could.

Communication and information

RECOFI should prepare a communication and information plan to deal with relational aspects

with Member countries and with non-member countries in the same area and with all partners

likely to bring financial, technical and operational support to RECOFI workshops.

Organization and financing: scenarios for the future

Seek ways and means to improve the Commission‟s financial capacity.

Target a budget of around USD 400 000 to 500 000 per biennium (i.e. USD 25 000 to 30

000/year/Member country) as a significant step towards the Commission‟s autonomy and long-

term commitment to regional work programmes which support good fisheries governance and

aquaculture development.

Prepare projects covering some thematic work programmes that could be submitted to external

donors or partners (GCC funding, Member country or donor unilateral funding to support

development, environmental protection, public investment concerning research, monitoring,

control, surveillance …).

A more operational and narrower cooperation with the GCC should be considered on the basis

of an agreement between the RECOFI Member countries of this organization and in parallel

with other possibilities.

Guarantee a regular monitoring of RECOFI financial commitments through the initiatives

undertaken by the Secretariat and the working groups.

44

Annex 3: Recommendations, endorsed by the Director General, concerning Article VI

commissions and Article XIV bodies (all bodies established under FAO, not only fishery bodies)

The policy guidance provided by the FAO Conference in Resolution 13/97, which recognized the

importance of moving towards increased self-financing for Statutory bodies that have a regional focus

and of enhancing the responsiveness of those bodies to the needs of their Members, and which decided

that in future Statutory Bodies should be established only where strictly necessary and where the work

to be undertaken cannot be carried out by ad hoc groups, is still in vigour.

In the context of the reform process under way in FAO, on 21 September 2005, the Director General of

FAO established an Inter departmental working group (IDWG) on regional commissions to make

suggestions for improvement, including strengthening, of regional statutory bodies.

Recommendations, endorsed by the Director General, concerning Article VI commissions and Article

XIV bodies (all bodies established under FAO, not only fishery bodies) are as follows:

To review the policies, mandates and statutes and consider whether there are alternative mechanisms.

To ensure that the officers are fully involved in agenda setting, that bodies are meeting members‟

needs and ensure the highest regional priorities are being addressed.

To ensure that secretariats are adequately funded and have full-time secretaries.

To encourage members to participate at own expenses of participating in sessions and encourage

the soliciting of extra-budgetary funding.

To encourage members to evaluate the strategic direction, goals, outcomes and overall

performance of each commission or body.

To enhance the participation of members in the work of commission and bodies, considering their

capacity to participate.

Concerning Article XIV bodies in particular:

To maintain consistent administrative approaches in support of these bodies, including through

ensuring transparent budgetary allocations from FAO.

To monitor and report on the extent to which the decisions of bodies are implemented and to report

to sessions of the body and to FAO Governing Bodies on progress achieved.

The report of the IDWG reads that a decision to upgrade Article VI body or to create Article VI body

should be functionally-based, taking into account the particular problems to be addressed by the body.

This is also in the line with the above mentioned argument presented to the Second Intergovernmental

Consultation for an assessment of possible options regarding the establishment of a Southwest Indian

Ocean Fisheries Commission.15

The paper presented to the Consultation argues that where fisheries are

under national jurisdiction, the management of stocks is a matter for individual coastal States. In so far

as individual stocks are shared between neighbouring coastal States, management measures may need

to be coordinated with the neighbouring States concerned. For coastal state fisheries there is no need

and no room for the establishment of a regional fisheries management machinery under Article XIV of

the FAO Constitution that has the power to take binding decisions on management issues. This

argument follows closely the provisions of the UN Convention and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement.

The FAO Director General has also convened an Interdepartmental Working Group on International

Treaties and Agreements (which therefore includes Article XIV bodies). The Director General did not

15

SWIOFCT/TC/III/2003/...:

45

endorse all the conclusions of the working group. For the purpose of this document, it is interesting

however to note some of the Working Group reflections regarding budget. Participants to the Working

Group noted that no general policy had been agreed for how the budgets of Article XIV bodies are to be

funded. They also noted that FAO has rarely attempted to quantify its in-kind or “hidden” support to

treaties and agreements. These include legal support, technical backstopping, administrative costs,

exemption from rent, heating costs, maintenance, free use of conference facilities, etc. The fact that

these are not quantified has, on occasion, led to FAO Members not wishing to cover project servicing

costs, on the assumption that the costs to FAO were low or that they should be incorporated in the FAO

contribution.

Importantly at the Twenty-Seventh session of COFI, 18-22 June 2007, Rome, the Secretariat

highlighted the management role of RFMOs and the advisory role of RFBs highlighting the importance

of both bodies in the conservation and management of resources. The awareness of the need to

strengthen and increase the efficacy of these organizations was noted.

46

Annex 4: Background international instruments

Primary instruments

UNCLOS

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 10 December 1982, entered into

force on 16 November 1994. To date a total of 155 States and the European Community have ratified or

acceded to UNCLOS16

.

UNCLOS creates a legal framework for the governance of the world‟s oceans based on a sectoral

approach to their management which covers, inter alia: fishing, navigation, mining, oil and gas. For the

purpose of fisheries management UNCLOS divides the oceans in two basic areas: the areas under

jurisdiction of Coastal States and the High Seas. It defines various internationally recognised maritime

zones including Internal Waters, Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Coastal States

have sovereignty over their territorial sea subject to the right of innocent passage and have authority to

prescribe legislation with regard to “conservation of the living resources of the sea”17

.

On fisheries the most significant contribution was the establishment of a legal regime for the EEZ

within which Coastal States have “sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting,

conserving and managing the natural resources whether living or non- living”18

. At the same time

Coastal States are under the obligation of determining the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and granting

foreign vessels access to the surplus in the TAC, based in the principle of optimum utilization of the

living resources in the EEZ19

.

As fisheries occur within and outside national borders, UNCLOS defines a specific regime for shared

fishing stocks: trans-boundary (shared with neighbouring countries) as well as straddling and highly

migratory (shared with distant water fishing States operating in the high seas adjacent to the EEZs)20

.

The Convention requires States to “either directly or through appropriate sub regional or regional

organisations agree upon measures necessary for the conservation of these stocks in the adjacent

area”21

. The duty of cooperation is also enshrined in Arts 117 and 118 requiring States to cooperate

with other States in the conservation and management of living resources in the high seas, either by

direct cooperation or through the Regional Fisheries Bodies (RFBs).

UNFSA

In the early 1990 it was recognised that the legal framework of UNCLOS was not sufficient to prevent

depletion of the world‟s fish stocks. After three years of intense negotiations the United Nations

Agreement for the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish

Stocks (UNFSA) was adopted in 1995 and entered into force on 11 December 2001. To date a total of

70 States and the European Community have ratified or acceded to UNFSA22

. The UNFSA broad

objective is to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable use of straddling fish stocks and

highly migratory fish stocks through effective implementation of the relevant provisions of the

Convention23

.

16

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/reference_files/chronological_lists_of_ratifications.htm (last update 04.06.2008) 17

Art. 21/1 (d) 18

Art. 56/1 a) 19

Art. 61 and 62 20

Art. 63 and 64 21

Art. 63/2 22

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/reference_files/chronological_lists_of_ratifications.htm (last update 04.06.2008) 23

Art. 2.

47

The general management principles established under Article 5 apply both within and beyond areas

under national jurisdiction and require States to ensure the long-term sustainability of these fish stocks

and their effective utilisation. These principles require Coastal States and States fishing in the high seas

to inter alia: minimize pollution; protect biodiversity in the marine environment; take measures to

prevent or eliminate overfishing and excess fishing capacity; collect and share data relating to vessels

position, fishing effort and catches of target and non-target species; and implement conservation and

management measures through effective Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS). The application

of the precautionary approach is established under Article 6, and Article 7 emphasises the need to

ensure compatibility between conservation measures established for the high seas and those adopted in

areas under national jurisdiction.

Furthermore, in defining the mechanisms for international cooperation, the UNFSA strengthens the role

played by RFBs in the conservation and management of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks.

They are set out as the preferred means through which States should cooperate to achieve and enforce

conservation objectives both in the high seas and in areas under national jurisdiction, defining under

Article 9 legally binding arrangements upon which States are expected to agree in order to achieve

sustainable management of fisheries. The functions of an effective RFB are established under Article

10.

Where no RFB exists for an existing or emerging fishery, States must cooperate to establish one, where

an RFB exists States that wish to fish for that resource must join the RFB or, at the very least, conduct

themselves in accordance with its rules. Transparency in the activities developed within the RFBs is

required under Article 12.

Another important development for international law is the increased emphasis on the responsibilities

of Flag States for their fishing vessels which include, inter alia, the following obligations24

: to take

measures to ensure that vessels flying its flag comply with conservation measures; to establish a

national record of fishing vessels authorised to fish on the high seas; to monitor, control and exercise

surveillance over such vessels.

FAO Compliance Agreement

The FAO Conference at its Twenty-seventh Session (November 1993), through Resolution 15/93,

approved the Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management

Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas for submission to Governments for acceptance. The

Agreement entered into force on 24 April 2003 and today has a total of 35 Parties including the

European Community. The Agreement was developed by FAO as an urgent response to the Declaration

of Cancun in 199125

which called upon States to: “take effective action consistent with international

law, to deter reflagging of fishing vessels as a means of avoiding compliance with applicable

conservation and management rules for fishing activities on the high seas”. As noted in its Preamble

“the Agreement will form an integral part of the International Code of Conduct for Responsible

Fishing”.

The Agreement elaborates upon the provisions of Art. 94 of UNCLOS on the duties of the Flag State

and aims at making them applicable to fishing vessels in the high seas requiring, on the one hand,

States whose vessels fish in the high seas to take steps to prevent their vessels from undermining

measures to the conservation and management of the living resources of the high seas and, on the other

hand, to increase transparency of high seas fishing through the collection and dissemination of data.

24

Art. 18. 25

Declaration of Cancun, 1991- http://www.intfish.net/treaties/cancun.htm.

48

Both the UNFSA and the FAO Compliance Agreement aim to tackle the problem of overfishing in the

high seas. There is however a number of distinguishing features that should be noted to facilitate the

overview of the national fisheries legislation provided under Section 4:

The scope of the FAO Compliance Agreement is not restricted to straddling stocks and highly

migratory fish stocks as the UNFSA, but rather applies to all species;

The requirements to maintain records are more developed under the FAO system than under the

UN system;

The FAO Compliance Agreement allows Parties to exempt fishing vessels of less than 24 meters in

length entitled to fly its flag from the application of the Agreement whereas these vessels may not

normally be exempted from the operation of the UNFSA;

The Flag State is the main target of the FAO Compliance Agreement whereas the UNFSA involves

other actors and emphasises the role of the RFBs.

Secondary instruments

Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries

The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF) was adopted unanimously in 31.10.1995.

Consistently with the primary instruments above, it establishes non-mandatory principles and standards

applicable to the conservation, management and development of all modern fisheries. This repository of

principles provides a framework for national and international efforts to ensure the sustainable

exploitation of aquatic living resources.

The CCRF covers all aspects of fisheries, including capture, processing and trade in fish and fishery

products, fishing operations, aquaculture, fisheries research and the integration of fisheries into coastal

area management. Article 2 defines its broad objectives which include: to establish international

standards of behaviour for responsible fishing and fisheries activities; to serve as guidance for States in

establishing or improving the legal and institutional framework for fisheries; to promote cooperation in

research, conservation and management.

The overall purpose of the CCRF is to facilitate structural change within the fisheries sector so that

stocks are exploited in a long-term, rational and sustainable manner. Although aimed particularly at

governments and their national fisheries administrations, it is also recognized that RFBs have a special

role to play in implementing the CCRF where fish stocks are shared.

Special requirements of developing countries are defined under Article 5 which include “the adoption

of measures to address the needs of developing countries specially with regard to financial and

technical assistance, technology transfer, training and scientific cooperation and in enhancing their

ability to develop their own fisheries as well as to participate in High seas fisheries, including access to

such fisheries”.

Fisheries management principles and objectives are defined under Article 7 and include management

framework and procedures, data gathering and the precautionary approach. Article 8 defines fishing

operations and distinguishes the duties of all states from those of the Flag States and Port States.

The CCRF is voluntary in nature. It is not static and has been complemented by other instruments

elaborated by FAO, namely the FAO Compliance Agreement and the International Plans of Action.

The provisions of the CCRF have also been further detailed by technical guidelines issued by FAO on

fisheries management, fishing operations, the application of the precautionary approach, aquaculture

development and inland fisheries.

49

As will be assessed below it remains the fundamental framework for international fisheries

management and is widely referred at national and regional levels.

International Plans of Action

Since the CCRF was adopted, FAO has been progressively adopting a number of International Plans of

Action (IPOAs) on various fisheries-related issues of concern. These IPOAs are voluntary instruments,

adopted within the framework of the CCRF, which are designed to reflect an international consensus

among FAO members on the implementation of specific measures referred to in the CCRF. The IPOA

for reducing incidental catch of Seabirds in longline fisheries (IPOA Seabirds), the IPOA for the

conservation and management of Sharks (IPOA Sharks) and the IPOA for the management of fishing

Capacity (IPOA Capacity) were developed in 1999 when COFI members agreed on the need for some

form of international agreement in order to facilitate compliance with the CCRF. These three soft law

instruments were adopted by the 23rd

Session of the Committee on Fisheries (COFI) in February 1999

and endorsed by the FAO Council at the session held in June 1999.

The IPOA to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IPOA IUU) was

developed in response to a call from the 23rd

Session of COFI, in February 1999, and was adopted by

consensus at the 24th Session of COFI on March 2001. The IPOA IUU is one of the most

comprehensive IPOA. It aims to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing requiring States to give full

effect to relevant international instruments, to not act inconsistently with relevant international

instruments, even when they have not ratified them, and to fully and effectively implement the CCRF26

.

To be fully effective, the IPOA should be implemented by all States, either directly, in cooperation with

other States, or indirectly through relevant RFBs or through FAO and other appropriate international

organisations.

Measures to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing should be based on the earliest possible phased

implementation of national and regional plans of action. These measures should be comprehensive,

addressing factors affecting all capture fisheries, and be implemented in a transparent and non-

discriminatory manner.

The NPOA-Capacity requires States and RFBs to apply its principles consistently with international

law and within the framework of the concerned organisation‟s competencies. Its main objective is to

achieve an efficient, equitable and transparent management of fishing capacity world-wide preferably

by 2003 but no later than 2005. The above objective may be achieved through a series of actions related

to four major strategies: (i) the conduct of national, regional and global assessments of capacity and

improvement of the capability for monitoring fishing capacity; (ii) the preparation and implementation

of national plans to effectively manage fishing capacity and of immediate actions for coastal fisheries

requiring urgent measures; (iii) the strengthening of RFBs and related mechanisms for improved

management of fishing capacity at regional and global levels; and (iv) immediate actions for major

trans-boundary, straddling, highly migratory and high seas fisheries requiring urgent measures.

Urgent actions are defined under Part III which include assessment and monitoring of fishing capacity

and preparation and implementation of National Plans of Action (NPOAs).

The IPOA Sharks aims at ensuring the conservation and management of sharks and their long-term

sustainable use. It applies to waters in which sharks are caught by their own or foreign vessels and to

States whose vessels catch sharks on the high seas. The term “shark” includes all the species of sharks,

skates rays and chimaeras, and the term “shark catch” includes directed, by-catch, commercial,

recreational and other forms of taking sharks. Each State is responsible for developing, implementing

26

Art. IV (10-15).

50

and monitoring its NPOA-Sharks. When developing a Shark-Plan, experience of sub-regional and

regional management organisations should take into account, as appropriate. The NPOA Sharks should

aim to ensure that inter alia: (i) shark catches from directed and non-directed fisheries are sustainable;

(ii) assess threats to sharks populations; (iii) identify and provide special attention, in particular to

vulnerable or threatened shark stocks; (iv) improve and develop frameworks for establishing and

coordinating effective consultation involving all stakeholders in research, management and educational

initiative within and between States; (v) minimize unutilized incidental catches of sharks.

The IPOA-Seabirds applies to States in the waters of which longline fisheries are being conducted by

their own or foreign vessels and to States that conduct longline fisheries on the high seas and in the

EEZ of other States. The text sets out a set of activities which implementing States should develop,

including an assessment of whether a problem exists with respect to the incidental catch of seabirds in

its longline fisheries. The IPOA Seabirds also provides a summary description of appropriate mitigation

measures which States should consider for inclusion in their respective NPOA Seabirds.

UN Resolutions and Declarations

There are several UN General Assembly Resolutions relevant to international fisheries namely with

regard to large-scale pelagic driftnets, ocean affairs and law of the sea and sustainable fisheries.

The recent Resolution 62/177 from 28 February 2008 on sustainable fisheries calls upon States, directly

or through RFBs, to apply widely the precautionary approach in accordance with the CCRF and to

collect and report to FAO required catch and effort data, and fishery related information, in a complete

accurate and timely manner, including for straddling and highly migratory fish stocks. It also calls upon

States to urgently adopt measures to fully implement the IPOA on Sharks for directed and non-directed

shark fisheries and requests FAO to prepare a comprehensive report of its implementation to be

presented to next COFI.

Under the same Resolution the UN General Assembly emphasises that IUU remains one of the greatest

threats to marine ecosystem and calls upon States to comply fully with all existing obligations and take

all necessary steps to implement the IPOA-IUU. It further calls upon States to urgently reduce the

capacity of the world‟s fishing fleets to levels commensurate with the sustainability of the fish stocks

and to recognise the legitimate rights of developing countries to develop their fisheries for straddling

and highly migratory fish stocks consistent with Art. 25 of UNFSA, Art. 5 of the CCRF and the IPOA

on capacity

Several relevant ministerial declarations adopted under FAO‟s convening function of relevance to the

matters covered under this report include: the Rome Declaration on IUU (2005)27

; the Reykjavik

Declaration on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem (2002)28

; and the Rome Declaration on

the implementation of the CCRF (1999)29

.

27

ftp://ftp.fao.org/fi/DOCUMENT/ministerial/2005/iuu/declaration.pdf 28

ftp://ftp.fao.org/fi/DOCUMENT/reykjavik/y2198t00_dec.pdf 29

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/X2220E/X2220E00.HTM

51

Annex 5: Results of the RECOFI questionnaire

Plan

A. Importance of regional issues in RECOFI countries

Main regional issues as identified by RECOFI countries

Importance of regional issues for RECOFI country

Process of identification of regional issues

B. RECOFI: an instrument to face regional issues and challenge?

General Opinion on RECOFI as regional instrument

Expectations towards RECOFI

C. RECOFI activities

Priority setting

Participation in RECOFI activities

Quality of RECOFI activities

Use of regional expertise in RECOFI activities

D. Governance, Visibility & Communication of RECOFI

Visibility and communication of RECOFI

Governance, accountability and efficiency of RECOFI

E. Strengths and weakness of RECOFI

Strengths

Weaknesses

52

A. Importance of regional issues in RECOFI countries

Main regional issues as identified by RECOFI member countries30

Among the three main regional issues identified by countries, 15 are directly related to fisheries and

three directly related to aquaculture. Six concern both fishery and/or aquaculture.

RECOFI countries all raised the overall issue of conservation/sustainable exploitation of fish stocks but

underlined different aspects of it.

Only few specific issues have been identified by more than one country: prevention of IUU, reduction

of by-catch, conservation/restoration of sensitive and critical habitat and biodiversity/reduction of man

maid pollution, need for more co-operation and co-ordination among countries (policies/research).

However no one specific issue has been identified by all the countries.

Depending on the country, shared stocks, stocks supporting a high level of fishing effort, highly

migratory & straddling fish stocks are designated as priority targets.

Importance of regional issues for RECOFI member countries31

The overall impact of regional issues on sustainability & development of country‟s fisheries and

aquaculture is considered to be of medium to high importance.

Fishery is perceived as being more impacted by regional issues than aquaculture (Table 1). When

asking how countries are concerned by the three main regional issues they identified, the impact is

judged to be by a strong majority.

Table. 1: Have regional issues an impact on the development and sustainability of….?

Not important Medium importance High importance

Fisheries 0 3 5 Aquaculture* 1 2 4 * One “no answer”

Process of identification of regional issues32

Despite the perceived importance, regional issues are not considered to be fully well identified by

all countries, neither at country, region or RECOFI levels. RECOFI member country‟ answers are

almost equally shared between “fairly” and “completely” well identified. The mixed opinion is also

reflected identification process of regional issues is completely satisfactory; this opinion is however

more significantly shared at country than at RECOFI level.

B. RECOFI: an instrument to face regional issues and challenges?

General Opinion on RECOFI as a regional instrument for fisheries and aquaculture

Member countries are manifesting some reservation as far as whether RECOFI can be the right answer

to address regional challenges and issues related to regional aquaculture and fisheries. However there is

an overall agreement on the fact that RECOFI can, partly or completely, be a right and useful

30

Questions 3.1.3 & 3.1.4 31

Questions 3.1.1 & 3.1.4 32

Questions 3.1.2 & 3.1.5

53

instrument if some improvements are achieved and all countries agree that the current geographical

coverage of RECOFI is appropriate to address the main regional issues. In fact a majority of country

consider that RECOFI still need to be strengthened to fulfil its functions. 33

Five of the height

member countries have identified other organizations that could potentially address regional challenges

and issues in particular the Gulf Cooperation Council (identified by 4 countries), but also the Indian

Ocean Commission and the Central Asian and Caucasus Regional Fisheries & Aquaculture

Commission. RECOFI members in majority support encouraging and developing a cooperation

between RECOFI and these other organization.34

Expectations towards RECOFI35

In coherence with the few reservations expressed in RECOFI as the right answer to regional issues, the

level of member countries expectations ranged, almost equally, from medium to high. Only One

country expressed a low expectation of RECOFI.

Specific areas where RECOFI is perceived as being the most useful to address regional issues are36

:

1. Regional and international cooperation,

2. Human capacity building and institutional strengthening & dissemination and exchange of

information and experience (equality),

3. Scientific advice and recommendations related to aquaculture and fisheries management.

C. RECOFI activities

Priority setting

Overall the establishment of priorities for RECOFI activities is not well marked by Member countries.

If a majority (Table 2) considers that procedures for priorities setting is adequate, their relevance

for countries are judged to be “poor” by 5 of the 8 countries, that would suggest that right

decision procedures do not lead to the right outputs. However this result is partly contradictory with

answers to another question (Q 4.1.6). Respectively five and three countries consider that RECOFI

priority activities address country needs fairly or completely37

.

33

Questions 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 & 3.2.1 34

Questions 3.2.3 & 3.2.4 35

Questions 2.7 & 2.5 36

Ranked by order number of countries that answer “completly” 37

Unfortunately the question 4.1.7 that explores the reasons explaining that priorities doesn‟t match country needs

is not exploitable by lack of sufficient responses from countries (only 3 answers).

54

Table. 2 Setting priorities

10.2.1 Satisfaction with Establishment of Priorities Poor Adequate Good

10.2.1 Overall satisfaction with establishment of priorities and

scores for :

a) Procedures for setting priorities 2 4 2

b) Communication of priorities 4 2 2

c) Relevance of the priorities for your country 5 1 2

d) Flexibility in response to emerging needs 5 2 1

4.1.6 Do RECOFI priority activities address countries

priority needs? Not Fairly

Complete

ly

5 3

Priorities communication and flexibility in response to emerging needs38

could also be improved as

respectively four to five of eight countries consider them poor.

Participation in RECOFI activities39

Despite some reservation expressed by countries through the questioner, a large majority of countries

rank all RECOFI activities „important‟ to „very important‟ to their country. Overall, they are also

satisfied with their own level of participation.

Their participation in the preparation and progress of meetings & sessions are „satisfactory‟ to „very

satisfactory‟. Only two countries do not participate in RECOFI-related activities to their desired extent

for mixed reasons.

This high level of satisfaction shall be shaded; among main weaknesses identified by countries, several

are pointed out the lack of human investment of some countries in RECOFI activities (see section on

strengths and weaknesses).

Considering countries‟ future needs, five of the eight members consider that their participation should

be „slightly‟ to „significantly‟ more than now and the three remaining do not see any reason to change

their level of participation.

Considering the involvement of different groups of stakeholders in RECOFI activities, the satisfaction

is rather low regardless of the group concerned: intergovernmental organizations, non-

intergovernmental organizations, industry, consumers, environmental agencies, non-governmental

organizations.

The majority of countries consider that the private sector should be more involved in certain RECOFI

activities, in particular the provision of technical experts for the WGS and human capacity building.

NGOs should be more involved in the identification and prioritization of regional issues, and the

provision of technical experts and technical assistance.

38

This might be explained by the luck of financial funding underlined 39

Questions 4.1.1, 4.1.3 & 4.1.4, 4.1.8, 10.2.8, 11.3.3 & 11.3.4

55

Quality of RECOFI activities

Working groups: Past and current activities of working groups on aquaculture (WGA) and fisheries

management (WGFM) are well known by most countries (expect one). Global participation of

members, quality of expertise, objectivity, impartiality and meeting management are almost equally

judged as satisfactory to very satisfactory.

The work of the WGA is well ranked (satisfactory to very satisfactory) in terms of level of activities,

quality of work, and outputs. However two countries out of the seven think that outputs are not

satisfactory and only six out of the seven think that the quality of work is very satisfactory. Two

countries out of the seven think that outputs are not satisfactory and only six out of the seven think that

the quality of work is very satisfactory.

The quality of the WGFM work is very satisfactory for a majority of countries. The level of activities

and outputs are judged only satisfactory by most countries and two countries are not satisfied by the

WGFM outputs. Suggestions have been made to improve WG quality and efficiency of work. Several

are related to WG participants:

1) More active and continuous participation of country representatives participating to

WG meetings,

2) Choice of representatives with expertise field coherent with the WG work.

Other suggestions are related to institutional organization:

1) Strengthen relationship between head of WG and national focal points;

2) Joint-meeting of the two WG,

3) Improve following-up of WG conclusions and recommendations.

Capacity-Building, training and technical assistance: Members‟ rating on RECOFI performance as

mixed. It is judged satisfactory by four countries, very poor for two countries and very good by three

countries. Further, five countries think that human capacity building is very poor and only three of the

eight countries answered the question on institutional strengthening (as a consequence, results are not

usable).

However capacity-building and training is generally considered to be of medium to high importance,

with the most important element being provision of training, provision of handbooks, manual and

provision of direct technical assistance to countries. Where the expectations are the highest, countries‟

opinions on performance is also the lowest.

Countries made a number of suggestions to improve capacity-building and training

56

Box 1. Member countries’ suggestions to improve capacity building and training

Process

Avoid limitation of training/capacity building activities because to overdue country funding

Increase budgetary funding and member contribution that would allow to built a human capacity

building program

Specify areas of needs to build appropriate programs

Making better of resources, capacities and available expertise in member countries to provide

training at reduced cost

Exchange of training outcomes among participation countries

Establishment of direct communication channel between scientific bodies to share available

information

Target

Training of cadre in members countries

Topics

Training and workshop program on fish stocks assessment, uniform statistical reporting and

aquaculture techniques

Use of regional expertise in RECOFI activities

A large majority of countries believes that RECOFI should make more use of regional expertise. They

also are favourable to developing a list of regional experts available to RECOFI and Member countries.

Concerning international expertise, opinions are more balanced. On average, it is considered to be fairly

used, except in the production of recommendation & scientific advice where the use of international

expertise is consider to high by three countries (as much as the answer “fairly”).

In coherence with this general feeling, all countries advocate in favour of developing joint-research

programs in the region.

D. Visibility, Communication and Governance of RECOFI

Visibility and communication of RECOFI40

For a majority of countries, the visibility of RECOFI at national, regional and international levels could

and should be increased; even so the overall level of satisfaction with RECOFI communication strategy

is good. In details, communication strategy at national level is better marked than at international level.

Reporting (Commission session, WK meeting) is very satisfying while communication through website

could be improved. In particular countries in majority give a high importance to develop an

autonomous website and a web portal where they could exchange data and information.

Governance, accountability, efficiency of RECOFI

40

Questions 5.6, 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 7.1.

57

Overall, governance is well marked, but even so the responses are showing room for improvement:

responsiveness to contracting parties, relevance of decisions, clarity and consistency of decision,

organizations and running of meetings, document produced (timeliness, clarity, etc.). Inclusiveness and

transparency are also globally satisfying, in particular “allowing all to have a voice in decision-

making”, “transparency of decision-making by the Commission” and “thoroughness of discussion

before decision-making”.

At the opposite, effectiveness (achievement of objectives) is globally perceived as poor to adequate.

Better marks were given to scientific advices, exchange and dissemination of information; worse marks

were given to promotion of regional cooperation and human capacity building and institutional

strengthening. This a coherent with the feeling that seems to arise from the questionnaire that priorities

are not so well defined and that the level of activities is not coherent with the objectives. Six of seven41

countries consider that the current level of activity is not or only partly satisfactory. Five of the seven

think that the current level of financing doesn‟t allow to implement RECOFI work program.

A large majority consider that RECOFI functioning and appropriation by countries would be improved

if the secretariat was located within RECOFI geographical area; even so they agree that the RECOFI

secretariat is well functioning considering the current level of funding. Five of the seven countries

consider that the level of activities should be much more in the future. However it can be noted that

only a small majority (4/7) considers that the level of funding should also be increased in the future. It

is partly contradictory when considered that countries are globally dissatisfied with the level of funding

provided by FAO, other donors (donor countries, international funds) and in-kind contribution by

contracting parties (medium satisfaction).This might be partly explained by the very mixed feelings

about the overall efficiency of RECOFI (economic and effective use of resource.) No strong trends

arose from countries responses, except on the efficiency of capacity building and efficiency of RECOFI

secretariat which are respectively considered “poor” and “good” by a majority of five. It also arises

from the countries responses that accountability to the memberships could be improved (transparency

of financial information, deployment of staff, etc).

E. Main Strengths and weaknesses42

Countries freely identified main RECOFI strengths and weaknesses in their opinions. The responses are

gathered in Table 3. They are organized by topics raised by Member countries to highlight the most

recurrent ones.

41

One country did not answer questions of the section 8 42

Question 10.1.1

58

Table 3: Main Strengths and weaknesses identified by Members countries

Main Strengths

Main Weaknesses

It is a reliable scientific body of the FAO

under UN

Well qualified and knowledgeable

personnel managing the RECOFI

activities

It provides excellent scientific guidance

and advise on fishery issues to the

member countries

It provides the good platform for the

member countries to discuss and resolve

issues arise on conservation and

management fishery resources in the

RECOFI area

Lack of legal command to compel the

member countries for implementing the

conservation measures in a more

effective manner

Less financial input to RECOFI from the

funding sources

Regular meetings and workshops

Two working groups

RAIS website

Budget

Low interactions between Focal points in

the groups and between secretariat and

NFP

Low level of importance given by some

members to the meetings and workshops.

Low level of awareness about RECOFI

and its role in the region

Increasing technical backstop by FAO

compare to last years

Existing diversity in technical issues

which address in working groups

meetings

RECOFI is a good space to address all

fisheries issues in Persian Gulf and

Oman sea Region

RECOFI has not strong relations with

other RFMOs & International Agencies

RECOFI has not used from member

countries expertise potentialities to

address the technical needs of

commission

RECOFI member countries have not

supported the commission financially for

execution of joint projects (generally )

RECOFI has not full power and role in

the region for protection and

management of fisheries resources as a

effective execution mean under article 14

of FAO constitution

There is no sustain relations between

national focal points of member

countries for exchange of views

RECOFI has not enough role for

improvement and strengthening of

fisheries cooperation between member

countries

59

Face to face meetings and exchange of

information amongst member countries

Efficient and fast preparation of meetings

and facilitation of missions

Direct meetings with Commission

members and with other international

players

Conflict of interests and policies of

member countries on the one hand, and

the primary objectives of the

Commission on the other

Lack of legal procedures to enforce

decisions of the Commission

Lack of scientific and practical

instruments to implement and follow up

of the Commission‟s decisions

Availability of experts

Availability of capabilities

Good communication

Dearth of training workshops

It is an international organization

supported by commitments within the

framework of the UN

It provides a single umbrella to joins the

countries of the region

Presence of some good regional expertise

that is committed to membership of the

Commission and its committees

Presence of high level technical expertise

with firm commitment to the

Secretariat, the technical secretariat and

the committees

Insufficient commitment by member

countries

feeble budget

Insufficient support from the FAO at a

high level

Lack of appropriate representation by

some member countries at Commission

or Committee meetings

A realistic assessment of fisheries

resources in the area through the

suggested programs

Formation of specialized working groups

and the holding of regular meeting for

these groups

Incomplete implementation of projects

and development programs that had been

agreed upon

Lack of adequate funding

Work program in the past was not

organized

The effective role in technical matters

and scientific advice

Awareness of member countries‟ lack of

capabilities in scientific research

Consulting member countries‟ experts in

the analysis of collected data

The organizational role it plays and the

development of generally sound

scientific recommendations

Lack of sufficient training targeting

member countries

Lack of remitting of assessed

contributions by some member countries

Lack of agreement by member countries

on unified measures to study fish stocks

and the collection of data

60

Annex 6: Synthesis of response to the RECOFI questionnaire

The questionnaire is divided into the following sections:

Part 1: General Information

Part 2: General opinion on RECOFI

Part 3: Regional dimensions of the fisheries and aquaculture sectors

Part 4: Participation in RECOFI

Part 5: Quality and provision of scientific advice

Part 6: Capacity-Building, Training and Technical Assistance

Part 7: Communication and Information Exchange

Part 8: Organization and Source of financing

Part 9: Dispute Settlement

Part 10: Strengths and weaknesses of RECOFI

Part 12: Possible Changes in RECOFI

This questionnaire is intended for completion by the relevant Ministry and scientific/technical

institutions with the coordination of the RECOFI National Focal Point. The questionnaire also offers

the opportunity for written explanations and elaboration of responses and to convey other concerns.

Questions are answered by placing an "x" in only one box.

The response should reflect the views from the Ministry responsible for

RECOFI and not individual views or opinion

61

Part 2 - General opinion concerning RECOFI

Rate the following statements about RECOFI Not Partly Completely

2.1. Is or can RECOFI be the right answer to regional challenges and issues

related to the fisheries and aquaculture sectors?

4 4

2.2 Through RECOFI, do you have the right instruments and means to

address regional issues and challenges?

a) Currently 2 4 2

b) Potentially if some changes and improvements are done? 2 4

2.3 Is RECOFI is currently strong enough to address regional issues and

challenges?

1 5 1

2.4 Are the national concerns related to fisheries and aquaculture along the lines

of RECOFI working agenda?

a) Overall 1 4 3

b) Working group on aquaculture 1 2 4

c) Working group on fishery statistics (before 2007) 3 5 0

d) Working group on fisheries management 5 3

2.5 Can RECOFI become a useful regional arena for the fisheries and

aquaculture sectors in terms of...?

a) Human capacity building and institutional strengthening 2 6

b) Scientific advice and recommendations related to aquaculture and

fisheries management

4 4

c) Dissemination and exchange of information and experiences 1 6

d) Regional and international cooperation 1 7

2.6 Is the visibility of RECOFI is sufficient:

a) at national level, for concerned institutions and organizations in your

country

2 3 3

b) at regional level, for other fishery or economic organizations and

institutions in your region

2 3 3

c) at international level, for other international and regional organizations 2 4 2

Low Medium High

2.7 What is the level of expectations of your country towards RECOFI? 1 4 3

62

Part 3 - Regional Dimensions

3.1 Importance and Identification of Regional Issues

3.1.1 Have regional issues had an impact on ...? Not

Important

Medium

Importance

Very

Important

a) the development and sustainability of your country's

fishery sector

3 5

b) the development and sustainability of your country's

aquaculture sector

1 2 4

3.1.2 Have regional issues impacting fishery and

aquaculture economic sectors been well identified?

Not Fairly Completely

a) In the case of the fishery sector 3 5

b) In the case of the aquaculture sector 2 5

c) At your Country level 3 4

d) In your region 4 3

e) At RECOFI level 3 4

3.1.3 What are the three main regional issues to be addressed?

1)

2)

3)

3.1.4 How is your country concerned by these regional

issues?

Not

important

Medium

importance

High

Importance

1) 1st main regional issue identified 1 5

2) 2nd

main regional issue identified 6

3) 3rd main regional issue identified 1 6

3.1.5 Is the process of identification of regional issues

satisfactory?

Not Fairly Completely

a) At your country level 2 4

b) At RECOFI level 3 3

3.2 Coherence of RECOFI regional coverage Yes No

3.2.1 Is the current geographical coverage of RECOFI is appropriate to address main

identified regional issues?

8

3.2.3 Does another organism for regional cooperation exist that could potentially address

regional challenges and issues related to the fishery and aquaculture sector ?

5 3

3.2.4 If yes, specify which one

63

Part 4 - RECOFI activities

4.1 Participation in RECOFI activities

4.1.1 Rate the importance of the meetings to your country

regardless of your participation:

Not Important

for Country Medium

Importance

for Country

Very

Important

for Country

Mark with an x if Ministry staff or country experts attended a

meeting of this group

a) Commission sessions 2 6

b) Working Group on Fisheries Management meetings 8

c) Working group on aquaculture meetings 1 2

d) Tripartite meeting "Fisheries Management Cooperation in the

Northern Area of the RECOFI

2 6

e) FAO/RECOFI Regional Workshop to Combat Illegal,

Unreported and Unregulated Fishing

1 6

f) Regional Workshop on Fisheries Statistics 8

g) Regional Workshop on stock indicators and stock status

reporting

8

g) Regional technical workshop on sustainable marine cage

aquaculture development

7

h) Regional Technical Workshop on Aquatic Animal Health 6

i) Technical Meeting on the Regional Aquaculture Information

System

6

4.1.2 Even if you or your colleagues have not attended a RECOFI meeting/session of your

interest, have you or other colleagues been involved in the preparation of your country

participation to the meeting?

Yes No

a) Not at all 2 3

b) Through the preparation of meeting documents or data 5 1

c) Preparatory meetings at country level 4 1

4.1.3 Overall, do you consider that Ministry

staff and/or country experts are sufficiently

involved in the preparation of your country

participation in RECOFI meetings and

sessions?

Not satisfactory Satisfactory Very

satisfactory

3 5

64

4.1.4 Overall, does your country participate in RECOFI-related

activities to the extent you consider desirable?

Yes 6 No 2

4.1.5 If no, to what extent does each of the following

prevent your country's participation in RECOFI-related

activities to the extent considered desirable?

Not

Important

Medium

Importance

Very

Important

a) Financial resources 1 1

b) Time constraints for senior staff 1 1

c) Shortage of qualified personnel 1 1

d) Language difficulties 2

e) Difficulties in electronic communication for

discussion and receipt of papers

1 1

f) Visa problems in attending meetings 2

g) Late notice of meeting schedule 1 1

Priority Setting in RECOFI Agenda Not Fairly Completely

4.1.6 Do RECOFI priority activities address countries

priority needs?

5 3

4.1.7 If not completely, what are the main reasons? Yes No

a) Wrong identification of issues/challenges and related country needs 1 1

b) Problem in the prioritization of activities 2

c) Lack of preparation of Commission sessions at national and working group levels 2

d) Lack of country investments in RECOFI priority setting and activities 2

e) Lack of funding to develop activities in line with countries needs even so topics

have been rightly identified

2 1

f) Mandate missing for national participants to involve national decision makers 2 1

g) Lack of criteria and methodology to identified regional issues and priority 3

4.1.8 Considering your country's future needs,

do you think your country participation should

be:

Less than

it is now

The

same

Slightly

more

Significantly

more

3 1 4

65

4.2 Activity of RECOFI Working Groups

4.2.1 Are you aware of the activities of the working

group of fisheries management (previously WG on

fisheries statistics)?

Not Fairly Completely

a) Nature of past activities 1 1 6

b) Outputs of past activities 1 7

c) Current Agenda and activities 8

4.2.2 Are you aware of the activities of the working

group of aquaculture?

a) Nature of past activities 1 6

b) Outputs of past activities 1 6

c) Current Agenda and activities 6

4.2.3 Please appraise the work of the working

group on fisheries management

Not

satisfactory

Satisfactory Very

satisfactory

a) in terms of level of activity (nb of thematic areas,

reports or material produced, etc.)

6 2

b) in terms of quality of work (sound science,

objectivity, impartiality, etc)

1 3 4

c) in terms of outputs (clarity and usefulness of

results, user friendliness of manual/training

material, etc.)

2 4 2

4.2.4 Please appraise the work of the working

group on aquaculture

a) in terms of level of activity (nb of thematic areas,

reports or material produced, etc.)

2 5

b) in terms of quality of work (sound science,

objectivity, impartiality, etc)

1 3 3

c) in terms of outputs (clarity and usefulness of

results, user friendliness of manual/training

material, etc.)

2 5

Only if you have been participating to working group meetings Yes No

4.2.5 Are meetings announced with sufficient notice to organise your country

attendance and to nominate the participants ?

6

66

4.2.6 Please rate the working group

in terms of:

Not

satisfactory

Satisfactory Very satisfactory

a) Participation of all members 1 4 2

b) Quality of expertise 1 4 2

c) Objectivity 1 4 3

d) Impartiality 1 4 3

e) Management of the process /

meeting

Questions are answered by placing

an "x" in the required box.

1 4 3

67

Part 5 - Quality and provision of scientific advice and recommendations

5.1 Priority and importance of areas for advice and recommendations

5.1.1 Does current advice and recommendations provided by

RECOFI address your country's needs?

Yes 3 No 4

5.1.2 If no & considering that proper analyses need to be

conducted in order to provide advice, what are the priority areas

for advice to be provided by RECOFI to address Your country's

needs:

Not

important

for country

Medium

importance

for country

Very

important

for country

5.1.3 Rate the importance of the following issues

a) Scientific advice on management measures 2 4

b) Scientific advice on the level of exploitation of shared stocks 2 4

c) Post harvest 1 6

d) Monitoring, control & surveillance system 1 5

e) Statistics on fisheries activities 4 3

f) Data collection and sharing 1 5

g) Bioeconomic modelling for fisheries management plan 6

h) Valuation of fisheries in term of economic rent 3 5

i) Evaluation of fleet capacity 3 3

j) IUU plan 2 4

k) Strategy for developing aquaculture 5

l) Analysis of aquaculture potential and opportunities 1 4

5.1.4 Request for advice Yes 4 No 2

5.1.4 Did Your Country address a request for advice to RECOFI? Yes 3 No 3

5.1.5 Does current advice and recommendations provided by RECOFI address

your country's needs?

Yes 4 No 2

5.1.6 If yes, did RECOFI respond to the request for advice Yes 2 No 2

68

5.2 Scientific advice and recommendations

Not

satisfactory

Satisfactory Very

satisfactory

5.2.1 Regardless of the fact that your country

addressed or not a specific request to RECOFI, how

would you assess the quality of advice

1 1 1

5.2.2 Scientific Advice process meets the

expectations and needs of the country

1 1

5.2.3 Does the advice take sufficiently into

consideration economic issues?

1 1

5.2.4 Does the advice take sufficiently into

consideration governance issues?

1 1

5.2.5 Does the advice take sufficiently into

consideration ecosystem approach?

1 1

69

Part 6 - Capacity-Building, Training and Technical assistance

6.1 Importance of Capacity-Building and Training

Importance of the different types of capacity-building, training and

technical assistance provided by RECOFI to your country

Low Medium High

6.1.1 Conduct of meetings/workshops for exchange of experience and

learning

1 2

6.1.2 Provision of handbooks, operations manuals, teaching materials,

etc.

1 2 6

6.1.3 Provision of training 3 1 5

6.1.4 Provision of direct technical assistance to countries 1 3 5

6.1.5 Assistance to attend International meetings 1 3 2

6.1.6 Other - specify:

6.2 RECOFI Performance in Capacity-Building and Training

Judgement on the performance of capacity-building work of

RECOFI.

Very

Poor

Satisfactory Very

Good

6.2.1 RECOFI overall performance 2 4 3

6.2.2 Overall performance in human capacity building 5 3 1

6.2.3 Overall performance in institutional strengthening 2 1 1

and specific performance in:

6.2.4 Conduct of meetings for exchange of experience and

learning

5 3

6.2.5 Provision of handbooks, operations manuals, teaching

materials, etc.

3 4 1

6.2.6 Provision of training 6 2

6.2.7 Provision of technical assistance to countries 4 3 1

6.2.8 Assistance to attend international meetings 4 2 1

70

6.3 Use of regional and international expertise

Yes No Do not Know

6.3.1 Does RECOFI make available to countries an updated list of

experts by area of expertise?

2 3 1

6.3.2 Would such a list would be useful? 5 1

6.3.3 Is the regional expertise sufficiently used? Not

enough

Fairly Too

much

a) For human capacity building 7 1

b) Institutional strengthening 6 1 1

c) Production of recommendations and scientific advice 5 1 1

d) Other RECOFI activities 3 2 1

6.3.4 Is the international expertise sufficiently used?

a) For human capacity building 3 4 1

b) Institutional strengthening 4 3 1

c) Production of recommendations and scientific advice 2 3 3

d) Other RECOFI activities 2 3 1

Yes No Don't know

6.3.5 Does a "joint-research programme" between research

institutions of the region exist?

2 6

6.3.6 Should a "joint research programme" between research

institutions of the region be more developed? 8

6.3.7 If Yes, please specify the priorities areas for a joint-research programme

1. breeding of local species for aquaculture and stock enhancement.

2. management of shared stock

Yes No Do not

know

6.3.10 Is RECOFI is well adapted to encourage the development of a

regional "joint-research programme" 5 1 2

71

Part 7 - Communication and Information Exchange

7.1 Communication, exchange of information strategy and reporting

Rate the following statement on RECOFI communication and

exchange of information

Low Medium High

7.1.1 Overall satisfaction with RECOFI Communication

a) At your country level 4 4

b) At international level 1 3 4

7.1.2 Satisfaction with Commission sessions reporting 1 1 6

7.1.3 Satisfaction with WG meetings reporting 1 7

7.1.4 Satisfaction with other RECOFI documents 1 5

And specifically for:

a) Quality of documents and reports (clarity, user friendliness, etc) 2 6

b) Availability of documents & reports (accessibility and time to

produce) 1 3 4

c) Availability of data and reports on RECOFI web site 1 5 2

d) Importance to develop an autonomous RECOFI website? 2 6

e) Importance to develop a web portal for data and

information exchange reserved to Member countries

1 2 5

7.1.5 Are RECOFI documents and reports (comprising

teaching material, manuals, etc) sufficiently

disseminated in your country

Not

satisfactory

Satisfactory Very

satisfactory

3 3 2

7.1.6 What could be done to improve dissemination of documents and reports?

72

Part 8 - Organization and source of funding

8.1 Internal Organization

Rate the following statement about RECOFI internal organization Not Partly Completely

8.1.1 Given the level of funding1 available to the Secretariat and the part

time Secretary, is the functioning of RECOFI satisfactory? 1 1 6

8.1.2 Any suggestions to improve the work and organization of the RECOFI secretariat?

8.1.3 Would locating the RECOFI Secretariat in its geographical area of

competence improve its functioning and its appropriation by Member

Countries?

Yes No

6

8.1.4 Would it be necessary to have more personnel at RECOFI Secretariat in

the future?

4 4

8.1.5 If yes, how this could be funded?

Not Partly Completely

8.1.5 Is the functioning of the National Focal Points satisfactory? 1 2 5

8.1.6 If not completely, why and what are the suggestions to improve the links between

RECOFI Secretariat and Member Countries?

1Current funding is 5,000 USD per year per Member

73

8.2 Source and level of financing

Rate the following statement about RECOFI Not Partly Completely

8.2.1 Is the current level of activities in the RECOFI work

program satisfactory? 2 4 1

8.2.2 Is the current level of financing2 appropriate to implement the

RECOFI work program? 2 3 2

8.2.3 Is the current level of financing appropriate to fulfil

RECOFI functions and objectives?

2 2 2

Much

less

As now Much more

8.2.4 In the future, the level of RECOFI activities should be...? 2 5

8.2.5 In the future, the level of funding should be...? 3 4

Not Partly Completely

8.2.6 What could be the most appropriate source of financing

to ensure that RECOFI fulfil its functions and objectives?

a) Members contribution to FAO except the participation of

members in meetings

4 2

b) Establishment of cooperative projects financed by

members 1 1 4

c) Autonomous budget. 2 3

2 Current funding in 5000 USD per year per member

74

Part 9 - Dispute Settlement

Yes No Don't know

9.1 Has RECOFI developed a dispute settlement system? 1 6 1

9.2 If No, do you consider useful that RECOFI develop a

dispute settlement system? 6

9.3 Would your country consider using the RECOFI

dispute settlement system in the future?

6 2

9.4 Does the dispute settlement system need to be

further developed before it can be used? 6 1

9.5 Usefulness to develop a Dispute Settlement Manual Low Medium High Don't

know

7 1

75

Part 10 - Strengths and Weaknesses of RECOFI

10.1 General Overview

10.1.1 What are the main strengths of RECOFI?

10.1.2 What are the major obstacles and drawbacks for RECOFI to fulfil its functions and achieve

its objectives?

76

10.2 List of potential strengths and weaknesses

Below are listed potential strengths and/or weaknesses of RECOFI. How satisfied are you with the

following?

Satisfaction with Establishment of Priorities Poor Adequate Good

10.2.1 Overall satisfaction with establishment of priorities

and scores for:

a) Procedures for setting priorities 2 4 2

b) Communication of priorities 4 2 2

c) Relevance of the priorities for your country 5 1 2

d) Flexibility in response to emerging needs 5 2 1

Satisfaction with Efficiency (economic and effective use of resources)

Poor Adequate Good

10.2.2 Overall satisfaction with efficiency

And scores for:

a) Efficiency of resource use 3 1 4

b) Efficiency of the Secretariat 3 5

c) Efficiency of the Commission 3 3 2

d) Efficiency of working groups 1 4 3

e) Efficiency of capacity building& work 5 2

f) Efficiency of the information exchange work 4 2 2

Satisfaction with Accountability of the RECOFI Secretariat Poor Adequate Good

10.2.3 Overall satisfaction with accountability of the RECOFI Secretariat

and scores for:

a) Responsiveness to country wishes 2 3 3

b) Accountability to the membership (transparency of financial

information, deployment of staff, reporting, etc.) 2 4 2

77

c) Satisfaction with institutional and legal arrangements between

RECOFI and FAO

4 4

Satisfaction with Governance by RECOFI Poor Adequate Good

10.2.4 Overall satisfaction with governance by RECOFI and its

subsidiary bodies

And scores for:

a) Responsiveness to contracting parties wishes (are all views

considered in the Commission decision making?) 1 3 4

b) Relevance of RECOFI decisions for your country 1 3 4

c) Clarity and consistency of decisions 2 2 4

d) Organization and running of RECOFI Meetings 5 3

e) Production of RECOFI papers (timeliness, clarity, length and

number)

4 4

Satisfaction with Effectiveness of the work of RECOFI (achievement of

objectives)

Poor Adequate Good

10.2.5 Overall satisfaction with effectiveness of the work of RECOFI

and scores for:

a) Scientific Advice & recommendation 3 2 3

b) Exchange and dissemination of information and experiences 3 4 1

c) Human capacity building and institutional strengthening 6 1 1

d) Promotion of regional cooperation 4 1 1

e) Dispute settlement work 3 2 1

10.2.6 Satisfaction with the Inclusiveness and Transparency of RECOFI Poor Adequate Good

operations

Overall score for inclusiveness

And scores for:

a) Thoroughness of discussion before decision-making 2 1 5

b) Capacity for broad-based international consensus 3 2 3

c) Ease with which information is available to all 1 3 4

d) Transparency of decision-making by the Commission 1 2 5

e) Allowing all to have a voice in decision-making 2 6

78

10.2.8 Satisfaction with involvement and influence of the following

groups of stakeholders:

Poor Adequate Good

a) Intergovernmental organizations 4 2 2

b) Non-intergovernmental organizations 6 1 1

c) Industry 6 1

d) Consumers 5 2 1

e) Environmental agencies 4 2 1

f) Non-governmental organizations 5 2 1

g) Other - specify: ..............................................................................

10.2.9 Satisfaction with level of funding for RECOFI and its work

programme

Low Medium High

a) Satisfaction with level of funding provided by FAO 4 2 1

b) Satisfaction with level of funding provided by others (donor

countries, international funds, etc.) 6 1

c) Satisfaction with level of in-kind contributions by Contracting

Parties (e.g. members of groups and committees providing their

own funding to participate in meetings, hosting of meetings, paying

for staff in the Secretariat, etc.)

1 6 1

d) Other- specify: ...............................................................................

79

Part 11 - Possible Changes in RECOFI

11.1 Changes in Scope and Priorities in RECOFI

11.1.1 Should RECOFI be more focus on...? Much

less

As now Much

more

a) Scientific advices and recommendations 2 6

b) Fisheries Management 1 7

c) Human Capacity building & institutional strengthening 8

d) Regional and international cooperation 8

e) Other, specify .....................................................................

Possible Changes in Scope Yes No Do not

know

1.1.2 Should the scope and work of RECOFI be extended to cover

functions not handled at all within RECOFI at the present time? 4 4

11.1.3 If yes, please specify:

11.2 RECOFI Institutional arrangements

11.2.2 Is there value added having the Secretariat at FAO? Yes No

5 1

11.2.3 Do you consider important to create formal link between

RECOFI and regional economic organizations?

Much

less

As now Much

more

a) Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) 7

b) Other economic organizations, please specify: ROPME Islamic

bank of development

1

80

11.3 Possible Changes in Priority setting & development of work programmes

11.3.1 Priority setting: Should the role be greater or less than at

present for each of the following in analysing and making

proposals for priorities and proposing a programme of work?

Reduced

Role

As

Now

Increased

Role

a) RECOFI Secretariat 3 5

b) The Commission 3 5

c) Working Groups 2 6

d) Technical consultation of Member parties 8

e) Member Parties themselves 1 7

f) Other specify: NGO 5

11.3.2 Organizational and Management Changes Yes No Do not

know

a) Should there be organizational and management changes? 1 1 4

Role of Private sector Much Less

Involved 1=

No Role

As

Now/Little

Change

Much

More

Involved

1 2

11.3.3 Should the private sector (eg. industries) be more

or less involved in RECOFI activities?

And score for:

a) Advice and recommendations 3 1 4

b) Provision of technical experts for working groups 1 2 5

c) Human capacity building 1 1 6

81

Role of Non-Governmental Organizations Much Less

Involved 1=

No Role

As

Now/Little

Change

Much

More

Involved

1 2

11.3.4 Should non-governmental organizations be more

or less involved in RECOFI activities?

1 2

And score for:

a) Regional issue identification and prioritization 1 2 5

b) provision of technical experts for working groups 1 1 5

c) technical assistance 3 5

11.4 Possible Changes in funding of RECOFI

If the funding basis of the RECOFI was to be changed, what

priority would you give to the following funding options?

No

priority

Medium

priority

High

priority

11.4.1 Contracting Party mandatory assessed contributions 2 3

11.4.2 Contracting Party voluntary assessed contributions 1 2 3

11.4.3 Service fees and charges (e.g. request of advice, specific training,

etc.)

4 3

11.4.4 Expansion of voluntary contributions for specific purposes (e.g.

trust funds)

1 1 5

11.4.5 In-kind contributions (in particular sponsorship of meetings

including travel for delegates, meeting rooms and document

production)

2 4

82

Annex 7. Interviews to national delegations attending the Special Meeting on RECOFI

Consolidation and Development (11-12 May 2010, Rome, Italy)

The special meeting on consolidation and development of the Regional Commission for Fisheries

(RECOFI) was held at the FAO headquarters in Rome, Italy, from 11 to 12 May 2010.

The objective of the meeting was to consider ways and means to enhance the role of RECOFI as a

regional fisheries management organization. The meeting participants reviewed the preliminary

findings of a technical review on the work and operations of the Commission. In addition, comparative

information was provided on the statutes, budgets and structures of the General Fisheries Commission

for the Mediterranean (GFCM), the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission IOTC) and the Regional

Commission for Fisheries (RECOFI). The meeting considered the financial status of RECOFI and

future scenarios for the consolidation and development of the Commission with particular focus on the

significant difference between Members‟ contributions and the total expenses of the Commission. The

history and present structure of the GFCM was presented to the participants who agreed that the future

strengthening of their own Commission would certainly benefit from the experience of the GFCM.

The meeting agreed unanimously that RECOFI required strengthening to make it a more effective and

legitimate organization. The meeting agreed to make three broad recommendations in relation to the

future technical and institutional work of RECOFI and its financial needs. The proposals and

recommendations from the meeting will be for consideration by the Commission at its fifth Session in

2011.

Mr Elie Moussalli and Mr Joseph Catanzano took the opportunity offered by this special meeting to

conduct interviews with the national delegations in order to consolidate some aspects of the review

and to consider in more depth some of the proposals related to the recommendations made by the

consultant (Mr Catanzano). These interviews took place after the delegates had been informed of the

results of the review and had heard the resulting recommendations (Cf. The final report of the special

meeting on consolidation and development of the Regional Commission for Fisheries (RECOFI), FAO

Rome, Italy, from 11 to 12 May 2010).

Several points raised by the delegations concerned the diagnosis and the Commission‟s capacities.

Several delegations regretted the lack of available human capacity and the limited panel of national

expertise that could be mobilised on account of the Commission‟s financial capacity together with its

rather exclusive operating mode.

Some countries also regretted the fact that they could not benefit more from training and the updating

of capacity through the Commission and through expert exchanges that would progressively

strengthen their own capacities. This was especially the case as some countries possess skills in the

fields that are necessary the diagnosis, monitoring and improvement of regulatory conditions in the

sectors covered by RECOFI (such as research for example).

Most countries agreed that there was a need to redefine common priorities for RECOFI on the basis of

updated national diagnoses as regards both available capacities and the priorities in order to improve

governance and development in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors.

National priorities must be expressed more clearly in order to facilitate discussions concerning the

development of regional projects. This motivational aspect is closely related to approval to increase

the States‟ financial contributions.

Most countries recognised the major role played by RECOFI as a platform for exchanging experiences

and addressing issues having a multinational dimension. These issues should be prioritised according

to the self-interests of the countries and according to partnerships which do not necessarily include all

of the countries but may be limited to the leader countries for specific themes. Such combinations of

countries should lead to stronger synergies as they target the direct interests of the relevant countries.

83

Therefore work on needs identification emerged as essential and goes hand in hand with a need to

strengthen exchanges in order to define, before undertaking new initiatives (projects or programmes),

criteria defining regional issues and/or prioritisation. The initiative on the tripartite conference was

cited as an example that could be followed.

Some delegations indicated a marked interest and had high expectations concerning a greater

implication of countries in attendance at RECOFI meetings and workshops. Such attendance should

involve the systematic preparation of papers and national communications to be published within the

framework of RECOFI reports. This should be the basis for consolidating exchanges. and should give

more weight to RECOFI outputs and gradually open the Commission towards external co-operation

outside of the Commission‟s framework.

Some delegations also noted that the National Focal Points suffered from inadequate operational

resources and were isolated and that there was a need to review the system through a modification of

the bodies of the Commission (possible supervisory and advisory role assigned to the Scientific,

Technical and Economic Committee).

The other issue highlighted was the difficulty of retaining human capacities within RECOFI‟s area of

competence because of the institutional mobility of people.

Overall, it was agreed that the Secretariat, when the issue was mentioned by the delegations, had

shown a marked improvement in recent years, even though some countries' expectations exceeded

current capacities and sometimes suggested institutional change towards the greater appropriation of

RECOFI's operational bodies by Member Countries‟ staff. Some countries also raised the issue of

relocating the Secretariat but not as a priority.

As regards RECOFI‟s financial capacities, the countries, except for one that prefers a wait and see

approach, acknowledged that contributions were weak but recognised that these could only be

increased if a more relevant and justified set of priorities were identified, accompanied by substantial

communication efforts based on achievements.

Several countries agreed that operational resources should not depend only on national contributions

but should be based on closer institutional links in particular with the GCC or other partners that

finance environmental, sectoral or economic issues.